Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

"Inequalities in Health"

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of the report "Inequalities in Health".

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I did so when the report was published.

Mr. Dormand: Is not it disgraceful that it took the pressure of the Opposition to have this important report issued? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if improvements in the NHS are to be made, it is essential that they be made quickly in relation to some of the report's recommendations? Can he say whether he intends to implement those recommendations relating to the four areas in the Northern region which call for a special health and social development programme, or is this another case where the Government will ignore the needs of the Northern region?

Mr. Jenkin: It is an absolute travesty to say that this report saw the light of day only as a result of Opposition pressure. I gave a clear undertaking to my predecessor that as soon as it was available and could be printed it would be published. It was printed and published. More than 100 copies were sent to the press and broadcasting authorities, and copies have been made available to hon. Members. It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to make that accusation.
As to the merits of the report, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that it contains

proposals for a wholy unrealistic increase in public expenditure—more than £2,000 million a year. In present circumstances, extra spending on that scale is right out of the question.

Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the report says, it is now essential, in view of the high cost of health care, to have a true partnership between the private and public sectors rather than a rivalry between the two?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. However, hardly surprisingly, that was not what this report was about. As to the health of the country, the report has some valuable things to say about prevention. These are matters which the Government fully take on board, as they are entirely in accordance with our policy.

Mr. Moyle: How can the right hon. Gentleman introduce a blanket rejection of the Black report when his answers to me yesterday indicate that he has no idea of the cost of about half the recommendations? Is not his real reason for rejection of many of the proposals the fact that he just does not believe in equal access to the Health Service?

Mr. Jenkin: The questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked yesterday—and I have no doubt that it was quite intentional—related to a number of recommendations which it is obviously difficult to cost in advance of detailed plans for implementation, or where the cost would not be a major factor, for instance, in setting up a further working group. But as the right hon. Gentleman well recognises, I said in my foreword to the report that the report is available for discussion, and we can all form judgments as to the effectiveness of the recommendations and whether they are costly. Some are certainly worthy of more consideration than others, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about my views on the report, perhaps he will try to ask different sorts of questions.

Pensions (Increase Payments)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the delay in payment of the increase in pensions.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Representations in the form of letters and pre-printed postcards have been received from a number of individuals and organisations.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Minister agree that pensioners have already suffered as a result of cuts by this Government and others? Can he give an assurance that even this Government will not stoop so low as to introduce prescription charges for old people?

Mr. Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about pensioners suffering, he had better look at the arithmetic. The uprating will be 16½ per cent. against a cost of living increase which was measured at 15·9 per cent. in September and which is tending downwards. Therefore, this will be the second year running in which this Government will have increased pensions more than prices.

Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, so that the Opposition can take note of it, that what he has just said means that the 16½ per cent. increase in pensions starting on 24 November will more than restore the value of the pension for the 54-week period since the last increase? If that is correct, does it not clearly demonstrate the Government's active concern for the elderly and other vulnerable groups at a time when the working population, quite rightly, is being asked to make sacrifices in its living standards?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend is right in every particular. The fact that the increase will have been more than the increase in prices for the second year running is of substantial benefit and should be set against the politically motivated rhetoric that we keep hearing about Government cuts.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that under the previous Labour Government's legislation, pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed and the sick would have received their increase yesterday—10 November? It is sheer robbery that, as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Act, pensioners will lose £12·30 over two weeks.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman made a number of mistakes there. First, he referred to the wrong Act—a

small point. Secondly, any Government, Labour or Conservative, would have dealt with the creeping forward of the date. The date in 1975 was 17 November, which would have been adjusted, anyway. Thirdly, his arithmetic is wrong. He should not compare a Christmas bonus for a single, retirement pensioner with that for a married couple. The Christmas bonus is £20 for a married couple.

Drugs (Expenditure)

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present method of controlling expenditure on drugs in the National Health Service.

The Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): The Department has introduced a number of measures over the years to control expenditure on drugs, but I am always willing to consider suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I had hoped that he would be able to assure me that a committee would be set up to investigate this area with a view to making considerable savings in expenditure? I had also hoped that he would give an undertaking that pharmacists would be included in such a committee as well as medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Sir G. Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that we have set up a working group to establish an effective dialogue between prescribers and the Department. At this moment, the composition of that group does not include a pharmacist, but my hon. Friend has made a positive suggestion which I should like to think about and then to respond to him.

Mr. Christopher Price: Have the Government any proposals to restrict the present unrestricted right of prescription by doctors? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an uncontrolled element of expenditure within the National Health Service? Does he realise that the only way of controlling it is to prevent doctors from prescribing drugs, which, in certain cases, are almost the same as similar drugs but which might cost four, five or six times as much?

Sir G. Young: No, Sir. The Royal Commission also looked at this subject and concluded that that avenue would not necessarily yield any savings.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that on occasions drugs are prescribed which cost more through the National Health Service than they would cost privately? At the same time will he look into the question of the supply of spectacles? I am now wearing a pair of glasses which cost $10—£4. Is my hon. Friend aware that such spectacles are commercially available in the United States at a lower price than the subsidised cost through the National Health Service in England?

Sir G. Young: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that a small percentage of prescriptions can currently be bought at a lower cost than the prescription charge. With regard to his second point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking at the whole question of optical charges to see whether we can come up with a more equitable solution.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister answer the question that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to answer and say whether he will try to claw back some of the money spent on drugs in the National Health Service by introducing prescription charges for retirement pensioners?

Sir G. Young: We have no plans to alter the current exemptions.

Benefits

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is Government policy to maintain the real value of social security benefits.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for reducing the uprating of certain social security benefits by more than 5 per cent. below the rate of inflation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In July the House approved increases, to take effect the week after next, in most social security benefits. Pensions and other long-term benefits will go up by 16½ per cent.—now expected to be slightly ahead of prices; unemployment benefit and some

other non-taxable benefits by 11½ per cent. Some benefits, such as mobility allowance and family income supplement will go up by more than our estimate of prices.
No decisions have been taken yet in respect of the 1981 uprating.

Mr. Canavan: Since many of the new benefit increases later this month will be considerably less than the rate of inflation, is not the Minister ashamed to be a member of a Government who are reducing the real value of benefits for the sick, the unemployed, expectant mothers and victims of industrial injuries? In view of the fact that the Treasury is calling for more cuts that will result in further attacks on the living standards of some of the weakest members of society, will not the Minister say that he will resign rather than implement those cuts, which will continue to clobber the sick and the unemployed?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the House debated and accepted the Government's proposals for an interim reduction in some of the nontaxable benefits, pending the introduction of proper taxation. Those matters were fully debated during the summer, and they are now the law of the land. I cannot add anything to what I have already said about the 1981 uprating.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some public disquiet that social security money is sometimes paid to maintain hire purchase payments on luxury items? Will he ensure that a limit is set on both the type and number of such goods that may be funded from the public purse in this way?

Mr. Jenkin: I can reassure my hon. Friend in that from the end of the month those payments will be made under regulations under the reform of the supplementary benefits scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that she may comb those regulations from end to end and she will find no mention of colour television sets or any other luxury goods of that sort. I hope that this change will put paid to the widespread rumours that public money is paid out for luxury goods. I have never had any hard evidence brought to my attention during the five or six years that I have been concerned with the subject.

Mr. Freeson: In view of the rumours that are circulating in Fleet Street and in some parts of Whitehall, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly whether the Government are contemplating cuts in the budget for supplementary benefits nationally, or whether it is the Government's intention to maintain the present real value of supplementary benefits? The Secretary of State should give a clear answer to the House.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate decisions which will be announced by the Government after the Cabinet has considered all these matters. At a time of economic constraint we can only afford what we can afford. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in these circumstances no programme can be exempt from scrutiny by the Cabinet.

Mr. John Townend: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that people who are working, and who have to accept the economic facts of life and accept wage increases of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. will think it very unfair if people who are not working are given inflation-proofed increases of 17 and 18 per cent.?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that those factors are very much in the minds of Ministers when we consider these difficult questions.

National Health Service (Treatment)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances documentary evidence is requested before a person may receive treatment under the National Health Service.

Sir George Young: In an emergency, treatment is not, of course, delayed by any need for documents. In other circumstances, a patient might be asked to produce documents to resolve doubts as to his or her eligibility to receive NHS treatment, or possibly to assist staff in correctly recording the name and date of birth.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister give an assurance that it is not his intention that British citizens should ever be asked to produce British passports as a precondition for National Health Service treatment?

Sir G. Young: We have no plans to introduce any form of documentation as

a routine before treatment is administered.

Mr. Robert Atkins: When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to introduce a scheme under which documentary evidence is required for those people from countries for which we have no reciprocal agreements for treatment? When will they have to present some form of evidence to show that they are not entitled to free medical treatment, and can therefore, be charged?

Sir G. Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we are looking at the question of treatment for overseas visitors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce his conclusions before the end of the year.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not correct that there is no legal authority whatever for requiring any documentation before administering treatment on the NHS or, indeed, for any other purpose? Is not the real sting in the proposal that people who may be suspected of being overseas visitors but who are settled here would have to carry about with them their passport and other documents to prove who they were, and that such a practice would be totally different from that applying to those who were born in this country?

Sir G. Young: Eligibility to use the NHS at the moment is restricted basically to people who are ordinarily resident here, work permit holders, and persons staying for prolonged periods, so it is not the case that everyone in the country at the moment is entitled to NHS treatment. I would deplore any situation in which those from ethnic minorities were, as a matter of routine, asked for documentary evidence before treatment was administered. There is no evidence of that happening and I would deplore it if it did.

Attachment Orders

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of attachment orders made in the last financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): In the year ended 5 April 1980 the Department made 469 applications to the courts for attachment orders.


Statistics are not kept of the number of orders obtained; but we do know that, of those which were obtained, 302 are still in operation.

Mr. Freud: In view of the lack of success of the current court orders may I ask what the Government have done about examining the recommendations of the Finer report, which recommended effecting a central collection point for court orders of this kind?

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this has been looked into, but not in as much detail as one would like. It has a number of costs associated with it.
There are practical limitations on attachment orders. The court must, for instance, take into account the person's family commitments before it makes attachment of earnings orders, and new orders have to be obtained if a person changes his employer. It is not merely as simple as one at first thinks it to be, but consideration is certainly given to it in those cases where it can help the beneficiary of the attachment order.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the Minister accept that the Finer report's recommendation for the setting up of an enforcement office was one of its most important recommendations, and that unless the Government implement that recommendation, far more maintenance defaulters will continue to go to prison, rather than, as the Finer report suggested, eliminating this as being an essay in social and economic futility?

Mrs. Chalker: I accept that there is grave concern about the matter, but, in the social assistance report, which dealt with the other changes being introduced this month, the general issue of liability upon spouses and upon parents to maintain their dependants who receive supplementary benefit was left for later consideration. The subject will be considered as soon after this month as the existing priorities in the first part of the review will allow.

Fraudulent Claims (Investigation)

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the additional staff appointed to investigate fraudulent claims are of a sufficient number.

Mr. Prentice: This matter is kept under constant review. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) on 13 February 1980 I gave details of the Government's special campaign against social security fraud and abuse during 1980–81; of an additional 1,050 staff, 270 were specifically allocated to the investigation of suspected fraud. I shall be considering the adequacy of these measures as part of my analysis of the current year's results.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the additional office staff have had a deterrent effect upon intending offenders? Will he also agree that it is possibly one area of public expenditure where we may increase the number of staff because of the return gained?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. There is a quantifiable result, which we are measuring by rather more sophisticated measures than we have used in the past. [Laughter] Well, most people in this country take the view that fraud and abuse should be dealt with, whatever view is taken by Labour Members. But my hon. Friend is correct in saying that in addition to that there is the deterrent effect, which cannot be quantified but, nevertheless, may be much larger than the figures on paper would suggest.

Mr. Rooker: If the Minister is using these sophisticated measures, why is it that we cannot have a progress report on the effectiveness of the measures before the end of the current financial year, which is what the Minister has said, bearing in mind that the amount of benefit to be recovered will rise from less than £100,000 a week to more than £1 million a week? If the difference is so great—and those are the Minister's figures—why cannot the House and the country have a progress report before the end of the year?

Mr. Prentice: Because the House will want—I think that the hon. Member was confirming this—a figure to be attached to the quantifiable savings. [Interruption] Yes, the target of £50 million has been quoted. I have answered questions in the House before saying that we appear to be on target in regard to that figure. But a quantifiable figure will have the greatest possible meaning when it is at the end of a complete financial year


and therefore can be compared with previous figures for previous financial years.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm reports that the claims made by his Department about the income derived from these investigations are wildly exaggerated? Could he estimate the number of genuine claimants who have been deterred from claiming by virtue of his very strident campaign against a small minority?

Mr. Prentice: The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir". There is no evidence whatever that our expectations in the campaign will be disappointed. With regard to genuine claimants being deterred, the right hon. Member is exactly 180 degrees wrong. A number of people, particularly very elderly people, still feel embarrassed about applying for benefits to which they are entitled, and one of the reasons for that is that the scroungers have got the whole system a bad name.

Cosmetic Surgery (Private Clinics)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about ways of controlling private cosmetic surgery clinics.

Sir George Young: None, Sir. When section 16 of the Health Services Act 1980 comes into force these clinics will need to register with the local health authority under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. The registering authority is concerned with the standards of facilities and staffing. The clinical practices of doctors and professional ethics are matters for the medical profession.

Mrs. Short: Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing reply to a question relating to an increasingly serious problem? Is he aware that the BMA now receives complaints about these cowboy clinics more or less every week, that the clinics are allowed to advertise—which is doubtful clinical ethics—and that they are wreaking damage on the women and, indeed, the men who patronise them? Does he not think that they should be brought under control, as other private clinics are?

Sir G. Young: If the hon. Lady has any evidence of professional misconduct

she should bring that to the notice of the General Medical Council. As she rightly says, the BMA is concerned about this matter and is seeing whether it can introduce some more effective guidelines for doctors. Any member of the public contemplating the use of such clinics should contact his general practitioner and take advice before going to any clinic.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the BMA's concern, will the Under-Secretary hold two Departmental inquiries? First, will he have an inquiry into the way in which the provision of consultants in plastic surgery is being diminished merely because of the possibility of their doing two jobs, one in a private clinic and one in the NHS, so that a number of senior registrars are not getting promotion? Secondly, will he hold an inquiry into the drain of skilled theatre nurses from the NHS to the new clinics and private hospitals, which art taking away from the NHS the important speciality of qualified, theatre-trained nurses?

Sir G. Young: The hon. Gentleman's question goes slightly further than the matter of cosmetic surgery. I shall look into the two matters that he has raised. Cosmetic surgery is available under the NHS in certain conditions.

Ante-natal and Perinatal Care

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he plans to take in 1981 to improve antenatal care and reduce perinatal mortality.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I ask the hon. Member to await the reply to the recent report of the Social Services Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality which the Government will present to Parliament shortly.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the distinguished committee under Professor Black calculated that a great deal could be done to improve the welfare of mothers and babies, particularly in the deprived areas of this country, by an expenditure of £30 million? Will he stop putting about the notion that the Black committee requires an expenditure of £2,000 million in order to do anything effective?

Mr. Jenkin: I quote the figure of £2,000 million from the Black committee I am quoting figures for precisely costed measures which it recommended should be introduced, including a whole range of new social security benefits.
With regard to perinatal and neonatal mortality, we can take some comfort from the substantial improvements that have taken place over recent years. As recently as 1963, the perinatal mortality rate was as high as 29·1 per thousand. Our estimate for 1979—this is a provisional figure—is 14·6 per thousand. That is a reduction of more than half in that period. I think that that is solid progress. What we need to do now is to build on it and to have sustained pressure for further improvement.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that he does not need to wait for any reports to know that in the Northern region the infant mortality rate is 5 per cent. above the national average, that the perinatal mortality rate is 13 per cent. above the national average, and that the male mortality rate is 10 per cent. above the national average? Does he think that it would be reasonable to take these figures into consideration when he considers his allocation of resources for the NHS next year?

Mr. Jenkin: These figures are built into the resource allocation formula, on the basis of which money is now distributed differentially to the different parts of the country. A region such as the Northern region had twice as much growth of resouces this year than regions such as the Thames regions, which are better provided for. I hope that we shall be able to maintain this progress, and that where we have greater growth in the future we shall be able to intensify the reallocation process.

Hospital Service (Savings)

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further savings he can make in the hospital service by reducing administrative and bureaucratic costs.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The changes we have announced to the structure and management arrangements of the National Health Service should enable management costs to be reduced by 10 per cent.

by 31 March 1985, excluding transitional costs such as compensation and protection.

Mr. Renton: In abolishing the area health authorities, however, has not my right hon. Friend just melted the tip of the iceberg? Is it not a fact that the administrative and bureaucratic tail in the NHS has more than doubled in size in the past 10 years, and that it is for that reason, rather than public expenditure cuts, that our financial resources have not produced more hospital beds and more operating theatres?

Mr. Jenkin: It is true that the number of people engaged in management and administration has grown. I accept broadly what my hon. Friend has said. It is not only the elimination of the area tiers that we are seeking in our reorganisation; it is a substantial slimming down of the management structure between the level of the district health authority and the unit, be it the hospital or the community services. We intend to set district health authorities clear management cost targets, so that they may introduce management structures which achieve what we are looking for. But, of course, there have been other changes which have increased the administrative load. For instance, now it is almost inevitable that in wards there are lay clerks doing clerical work that used to be done by nurses. It is right that nurses should be left free to exercise their professional skills and that laymen should do the jobs that they—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That reply was inordinately long, as have been many supplementary questions this afternoon.

Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way of cutting administrative costs would be to reduce useless planning? Will he, therefore, issue the long-promised and long-awaited code of practice under section 5 of the Health Services Act, and in that code of practice will he issue a prohibition to health authorities concerning the sale of human tissue and human blood as a way of raising money?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made it abundantly clear that we entirely accept the point that transfers of human tissue and human blood are not a proper area for


commercial operation. I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there could be vast savings in administrative and bureaucratic costs if a greater proportion of the ancillary services of the NHS were handed over to private enterprise? Is he aware that, in view of reorganisation, administrators are tending to go back more to direct labour? Will he see that the sensible circular on this subject which he sent out in the summer is heeded by health authorities?

Mr. Jenkin: The circular that we sent out was a draft circular for consultation. We are currently consulting within the Health Service. We have it in mind to send out a full circular on this subject in the near future.

Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the slimming down that is going on is of the Health Service itself? Does he accept the deep concern expressed by the National Association of Health Authorities about the cuts that authorities are having to make in wards, nurse training and essential building tasks?

Mr. Jenkin: It is fair to point out that this year we are spending more in real terms on the NHS than was spent in any year under the right hon. Gentleman.

Benefits (Take-up)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will make a statement setting out the steps which he is taking to improve the take-up benefits.

Mr. Prentice: This month the Department will be running an advertising campaign further to improve the take-up of family income supplement among working families with low incomes. We shall also be publishing a new edition of our guide "Which Benefit?" and this, like other leaflets about individual benefits, will include the new rates. They will be available from local social security offices.

Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister accept, however, that during the time of this Government-induced depression, it is vital that those who are entitled to benefits claim them? Will he, therefore, commend to other local authorities the

admirable initiative of the Strathclyde council in promoting the take-up of benefits in its area? If not, why not?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The activities of the Strathclyde council in this respect were just as much a piece of cheap political propaganda—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish"]—as are so many of the speeches that we hear from Opposition Members. But, of course, I accept that we want to see the utmost take-up of benefits in any period—whether it be a recession or any other period—by people who are entitled to them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While I endorse the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the organisations of disabled people have become more concerned that, in some localities, there are fewer and fewer benefits to take up? Is he aware of the case of East Sussex county council? What action is he taking about the charge that that council has now entirely suspended the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in the matter of assessing the needs of disabled people?

Mr. Prentice: That matter does not arise from this question, which relates to State benefits. But once again, the right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun on information that will not be confirmed. If he looks into the matter, he will find that the situation in East Sussex is nothing like the situation which he has tried to imply.

Radiotherapy and Renal Dialysis

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend the principal Act so that patients receiving radiotherapy and renal dialysis do not lose their unemployment benefit.

Mrs. Chalker: The proposals which I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 29 October will enable anyone incapable of work through undergoing renal dialysis, or, possibly, other treatment for a serious condition, on two or three days in a week to receive sickness or invalidity benefit. This change will apply to people who are not in employment as well as those who are. Neither this change nor


the new provision it is designed to modify affects unemployment benefit.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Lady aware that we welcome her reply today and her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall)? Will she state whether this proposal will need amending legislation? If so, how quickly shall we see it?

Mrs. Chalker: This proposal will need amending legislation, which will be brought in as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, as soon as it was discovered that this situation had occurred through the Social Security (No. 2) Act, extra-statutory steps were taken to make sure that there was no hesitation and that the benefit continued to those people undergoing renal dialysis on two or three days a week, through a statutory note from the Treasury.

Mr. Whitehead: In view of the hardship that has been caused in the interim in some circumstances, will the Department circularise the information to directors of dialysis units so that the information is available to their patients?

Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry to hear that there has been difficulty. Notices were sent to local offices before the date of change. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he will let me have a note of specific cases, I shall take them up myself.

Cigarettes (Sales Promotion)

Mr. Pavittt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations he has been having with the tobacco industry on the sales promotion of cigarettes: and if he will publish in the Official Report the dates upon which meetings have been held and the names of the negotiators, together with the company they represent.

Sir George Young: The negotiations are continuing, and, as my right hon. Friend has said in the House on several occasions, he will make a statement when they are concluded. Both sides agreed that the details of the negotiations should remain confidential.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that it seems that the industry is running rings round the Department in the negotiations?

It seems that no one in the Department is prepared to stand up to the vested interests of the tobacco barons. Will he take the opportunity of having legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech that would expedite the negotiations?

Sir G. Young: Nothing could be further from the truth. We have said that we shall proceed by voluntary agreement for as long as it is possible to do so. If that is not possible, we shall, as my right hon. Friend has said, consider other measures.

Mr. Michael Morris: Have not the negotiations been continuing long enough? Is it not about time that the Department differentiated between health needs, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) alluded, and interfering with the general marketing function of any consumer goods manufacturer?

Sir G. Young: As my hon. Friend knows, there are already considerable constraints on the marketing of tobacco. For example, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes on television. I share his wish to achieve, if possible, an agreement by consent.

Mr. Orme: Will the Minister give us a date when the Government will make a statement? The negotiations have been continuing for 18 months. The House is entitled to have a definite date and to hear the Government's proposals.

Sir G. Young: The negotiations have been continuing for about 11 months and not 18 months. I agree that at some stage the negotiations will have to stop. I do not find it helpful to announce in advance the date on which the Government will make a statement.

European Community (Reciprocal Arrangements)

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children born in the United Kingdom are not covered for medical treatment in EEC countries.

Mr. Prentice: I regret that information to make a reliable estimate is not available.

Miss Lestor: Is not the Minister aware that thousands of children whose parents


have paid national insurance contributions for many years are denied medical treatment in EEC countries because their parents are not EEC nationals? Is he aware that this causes tremendous difficulty—for example, for school parties when going abroad? When is the EEC likely to change its attitude and what are the Government doing to persuade it to change its attitude?

Mr. Prentice: We hope that it will be changed very soon. We share the view that the hon. Lady has expressed. The Government have been taking the initiative within the Community to try to get an amendment accepted that will cover children in the position that she has described. We hope that the issue will come before the Council of Ministers on 27 November and that a solution might be reached at that meeting.

Mr. Jessel: What is the current position for the children of self-employed persons requiring medical treatment in EEC countries?

Mr. Prentice: That matter also will probably be on the agenda on 27 November.

Death Grant

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of burial and cremation expenses represented by the death grant: if he will now take steps materially to increase this grant; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: The costs of burials and cremations vary widely, but on the assumption that an average funeral now costs between £250 and £300, the death grant represents between 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the cost. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have for some time been considering the whole question of the death grant. We shall make an announcement about our conclusions as soon as ever possible.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is high time that something was done? Is it not disgraceful that elderly persons are afraid of not being able to meet the cost of their own burial? Widows and widowers have to turn to supplementary benefit to obtain

money to meet the cost of burying their life partner. Does not the hon. Lady feel that it is time to bring the death grant to a level much more in line with the actual cost of burial and to have it linked to the cost of living?

Mrs. Chalker: We shall resolve this issue as soon as possible. It has proved much more complicated than the Opposition have recognised.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, and this evening my Cabinet colleagues and I will be giving a dinner in honour of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great resentment that has been caused throughout the country by the Government's decision to renege on the agreement with the firemen? Is it Government policy to go back on other agreements with other groups in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: Last year, when it came to the rate support grant, the Government fixed a cash limit of 13 per cent. No one called that an incomes policy—it was not. This year the Government have fixed a cash limit for the pay bill of 6 per cent. That is not an incomes policy, either. How local authorities allocate the 6 per cent. is a matter for them, as it was a matter for them how they allocated the 13 per cent.

Mr. Cormack: As my right hon. Friend prepares for dinner this evening, will she reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is no longer the most prominent republican in the House?

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady say what is an incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: I have long since wondered.

Mr. Foot: Is it because the right hon. Lady is still wondering what her policy is that she did not take the trouble to present to the House her proposals for the supposed 6 per cent? Does she now really tell us that in the case of the firemen there was no breach of faith? Does she really say that the firemen have been honourably treated? Does she really think that the decision of the Government in this matter will ease the settlement of future industrial disputes, when no one in such circumstances will be able to trust the word of the Government?

The Prime Minister: As I explained when asked a similar question last week, the Government have no locus in the negotiations between local authorities and firemen. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to look it up, he will find that reply. The negotiations are conducted between the firemen and the local authorities and the Government have no standing. The Government come in two ways only—first, by deciding the total increase of the total pay bill for local authorities, which we have done, and, secondly, only in relation to those duties of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, through the fire inspection officer, about the numbers of firemen. Otherwise, the matter is wholly one for local authorities.

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reassure our NATO allies that the views held by the Leader of the Opposition on unilateral disarmament—which show that he has forgotten the lessons that he learnt 40 years ago—are not supported by the great majority of the British people?

The Prime Minister: I was so intent on the question that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) asked me, and so used to being questioned by him, that I forgot to do the courtesies that I should have done immediately. May I warmly congratulate him on the assumption of his important office? I hope that he will genuinely and truly enjoy it. From time to time Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition have to hold consultations. I know that those consultations will be pursued as amicably as they were with his distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), to whom I am

very grateful for all the co-operation that we received during his time as Leader of the Opposition. I wish him a quieter life. As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), our independent nuclear deterrent has formed part of the West's shield. It is one of the things that has held the balance between the great Powers. It has, therefore, assured the peace of this country, of the West, and of the Russian people.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words, which were wedged between the other remarks that she made. Does not the right hon. Lady appreciate that millions of people in Britain are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of the arms race throughout the world? Is it not a crime and a folly that her Minister's statements show no recognition of that great fact?

The Prime Minister: The people of Britain would be far more worried, and would have occasion to be far more worried, if they did not have a proper and full defence policy to protect their liberties, which the right hon. Gentleman also cherishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WITCHAM

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister whether she will visit Witcham.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, but should it prove possible I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to call in on Grunty Fen first.

Mr. Freud: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Witcham may well lose their excellent village school so that the local education authority can save the cost of two assisted places? Does she not agree that poverty—about which she is so concerned—can also be induced by depriving rural areas of essential amenities, such as village schools?

The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to maintain rural schools, and I always have done. This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his local education authority. I understand that proposals have not yet been put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.


I am sure that they will be. In the meantime, I am happy that Witcham's population of 251 has a high standard of employment and very few troubles.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 11 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.

Mr. Dubs: What consultations took place with the trade unions involved, before the Government announced their 6 per cent. pay limit on public sector workers?

The Prime Minister: First, this is not, and never has been, a pay limit. Normal consultations took place with the local authorities. The Government decided that the ordinary people of Britain could afford to contribute only 6 per cent. to the increased local authority total pay bill. How that is allocated, precisely what negotiations are conducted, and the wage variations between the several groups of local authority employees is a matter for the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to remind the country of the words spoken by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) on 28 October 1975? He said then that inflation helped to cause unemployment. At one of my right hon. Friend's informal meetings behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, will she endeavour to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to assist her in her fight to bring down inflation?

The Prime Minister: I firmly believe that inflation creates unemployment. The only way to secure good job prospects is to pursue this Government's policies and to bring down inflation first.

Mr. Leighton: Is the right hon. Lady looking forward to her bare-knuckle fight with the CBI?

The Prime Minister: I am very much looking forward to seeing Sir Terence Beckett tomorrow. I hope that he is, too.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To what cause does my right hon. Friend attribute Soviet intransigence in Madrid? Is it due to their dismal record on human rights since Helsinki or is it due to the contemplation of military aggression against Poland? In either event, will my right hon. Friend make clear that it would be hopeless for the conference to proceed without a detailed and clear review of the implementation of the Final Act?

The Prime Minister: I regret that it has not been possible for the Madrid conference on the Helsinki accords to get under way. The Soviet Union does not wish its record on political repression to be shown in its true light.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consult local government on the effect of Government expenditure cuts on local services? Will she bear in mind that the county of Gwynedd faces £4 million worth of possible cuts, and that that means closing three old people's homes, one technical college, ending nursery education and doing away with large parts of the home help service? Does the right hon. Lady accept that that will be the result of the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: How a local authority allocates its income from taxpayers and ratepayers is a matter for the local authority to decide. Too often, many of us have seen cuts made in sensitive areas, and too little in administration. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, and I have no doubt that he is, his remarks give enormous justification for saying that people in the public sector must take into account the capacity of the private sector to finance those who work in the public sector.

Mr. Squire: During her busy day would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on which of the many policies, previously advocated by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), will be the first to suffer a U-turn in his new capacity.

The Prime Minister: I just trust that the right hon. Gentleman will never have a chance to put them into effect. I recall that it was a woman who defeated him in Devonport.

Mr. English: Sexist!

Oral Answers to Questions — CALLANDER PARK AND HAMILTON COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if she will agree to meet a deputation from Callander Park and Hamilton colleges of education to discuss the change in Government policy towards Scottish colleges of education.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North (Mr. Fletcher) has already met deputations from both colleges and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to meet a further deputation from Hamilton.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Prime Minister recall that last time the future of colleges of education in Scotland was under consideration she took the trouble to come to Scotland and to take part in a party political broadcast on colleges of education? Does she recall that after she had accepted that there was a need to reduce the number of teachers being trained, she said that she believed that instead of merging and destroying colleges, they should be kept going? Why did she want to keep colleges going in 1977 when she was Leader of the Opposition and yet want to destroy them in 1980 when she is Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I never thought that we could keep all colleges of education going. As Secretary of State for Education I had to begin a programme for reducing colleges of education, a programme that my successors in that Department have had to uphold and, indeed, extend. It is no earthly good training teachers for jobs that will not be there due to the fall of 1 million in the number of school pupils in future. Such decisions may be painful, but they have to be taken and have been taken.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have yet received an application from any member of the Government, particularly the Secretary of State for Employment, to make a statement on the 6 per cent. pay limit imposed on local authorities? A statement was requested by the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that matter yesterday. I have had no request. It is a matter for the Government.

RAMPTON HOSPITAL

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Rampton special hospital.
Following the showing of a programme on Yorkshire Television on 22 May 1979, I invited Sir John Boynton to lead a team to review the management of Rampton special hospital. I am today publishing the team's very thorough report. Sir John and his fellow members had a most difficult task, and I am deeply grateful to them for the work that they have done.
The report praised both the dedication and hard work of most staff at the hospital and many of the facilities there. I endorse this praise. However, the team was also critical of the way that the hospital is managed and called for major improvements in the treatment and care of patients. Some of the main proposals were discussed by the team with staff at the hospital, and I can tell the House that some changes are already being made by the hospital, including much-needed changes on the male block wards.
I accept the team's analysis of the hospital's and the Department's short-comings and the main thrust of the reforms that it proposes. It concludes that Rampton should continue to operate as a special hospital. I agree. I also accept its proposal that for the next three years Rampton should be supervised by a local board to be called the Rampton review board. This board will guide and support local management in securing the implementation of the changes that the team has proposed. The necessary order and regulations to establish the board as a special health authority will be made as soon as possible. I expect to announce soon the composition of the board. I hope that it will be able to begin its work by the turn of the year.
In addition, I have accepted the team's proposals for a reform of local management and for the appointment of a medical director, who would provide the leadership for the hospital that has been lacking. I shall be advertising for the post of medical director very shortly.
Another of the review team's main recommendations to which I attach great

importance concerns the transfer of those patients at Rampton who have been waiting, some of them for a very long time, for places in local hospitals. I share the team's concern on this difficult issue and I am writing personally to all regional health authority chairmen about it, urging them to make swifter progress.
Some of the recommendations by the team extend beyond Rampton and will require wider consideration. In particular, it proposes a body to inspect and monitor all institutions where patients are detained under the Mental Health Act. This proposal has already been put to me in relation to legislation to amend the Mental Health Act. Sound and effective monitoring systems are essential to the proper running of all health services in this country, including those institutions that hold Mental Health Act patients. I am now considering the various ways in which this requirement can be met.
In the interim, three of the four special hospitals will have schemes to involve in their work people from outside the hospital. Rampton will have its review board. At Moss Side and Park Lane hospitals the local community health council has, as the House already knows, arranged to make regular visits. I am urgently considering how a similar arrangement could be made at Broadmoor.
Change cannot be achieved overnight. Implementation of the review team's recommendations requires changes in attitudes as well as staff and financial resources. The team noted that management and staff appear to accept the need to examine traditional attitudes, practices and regimes and we must seek to ensure that, through the Boynton report, a much stronger impetus is given to the improved running of the hospital and higher standards of patient care. To achieve this the hospital will need the full understanding and support of all of us—the professions, the public and Parliament. The patients for whom we care deserve no less.

Mr. Moyle: We should like to join in the thanks that the Secretary of State expresses to Sir John Boynton and his staff on the hard, patient and conscientious work that they have put in on the report.
We must all hope that the report will provide the basis for resolution of the


problems uncovered by Yorkshire Television in May last year and for the proper care of the patients at Rampton. We endorse the report's view of the majority of the staff at Rampton and their conscientious work.
As the Secretary of State said, there is a great amount of detail in the report, and we shall want to give it careful and detailed consideration. However, broader questions arise. First, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of support and human sympathy for the staff and patients at Rampton. Will he undertake to make available any extra finance that may be needed for implementing the report, where necessary? Secondly, bearing in mind the fate of the Elliott report in 1973, which is still not implemented, will the Secretary of State consider setting a date for the full implementation of this report, which we can all work towards? Thirdly, there is much press and public interest in the matter, particularly in the area concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Official Secrets Act applies only to discussion of the hospital's security system and is not a blanket coverage of the whole of its activities? Specifically—and the Secretary of State was not clear about this—will he review all the special hospitals and their procedures in the light of the report?
There are a number of recommendations aimed at improving industrial relations in the hospital. The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he intended to proceed to the negotiation of their implementation forthwith. Does he intend to do so? Does he believe that the recommendations will improve the industrial relations atmosphere, bearing in mind what happened to last week's arranged press visit to the hospital, which had to be called off due to staff resentment? Does he believe that the recommendations will remove Rampton's sense of geographical and profesional isolation?
Finally, it is assessed that there are about 130 patients who should not be there. The right hon. Gentleman talks about transferring them to other hospitals. Last March his Department produced a study on the transfer of patients out. Has the rate of transfer of patients out of Rampton increased since the tabling of that study? We shall

be pleased to hear the answers to those questions.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) for his kind words about Sir John Boynton and his colleagues.
One of the points that the report makes is that shortage of finance has not been part of the problem at Rampton.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is attitudes.

Mr. Jenkin: That is what the report says. The hon. Gentleman is right. The main problem is attitudes.
At present it would be difficult for me to find additional finance, but I shall want to look at that very carefully.
I am reluctant to set a date for the implementation of the recommendations. The appointment of a review board to carry forward the implementation of the recommendations is the best way to make progress.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Elliott report. Previous reports have never carried the full support of the staff at the hospital, whereas Sir John has been able to say that the staff accept the need for changes in traditional attitudes and practices. That is a cause for optimism.
The staff at the hospital are effectively civil servants and therefore are automatically bound by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I hope that it will be possible in future to adopt a much more liberal attitude to the publication of factual information about the hospital and professional views of matters of professional concern at the hospital. I shall want to examine carefully how we can substantially liberalise such procedures. As the right hon. Gentleman recognised, the security arrangements at the hospital must obviously remain subject to the Act.
Many of the lessons of the report will be applicable to other hospitals, though the others have not suffered problems to anything like the degree that Rampton has. In particular, the other hospitals have all accepted a proper complaints procedure whereas at Rampton that is still bogged down in negotiations with the staff interests.
It is for the review board to implement the recommendations, under, of


course, the general direction of my Department.
I regret that the journalists who visited Rampton last week were not able to be given the same facilities as had been given to, for instance, journalists from The Sunday Times who visited the hospital some months ago. However, I can understand the suspicions of the staff at the hospital who have not been dealt with kindly by the press in the past and who need some reassurance. I hope that we can make progress.
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about geographical and professional isolation. We shall pay particular attention to the recommendations that there should be much more movement of staff between Rampton and other mental health institutions and that there should be many more opportunities for staff to visit other institutions and to see modern practices elsewhere.
I cannot tell the House that the rate of transfer from Rampton to other mental health hospitals has increased. It has not. That is a matter to which we wish to give urgent attention. We want to ensure that NHS hospitals realize that they have an important role and responsibility, as part of the continuum of care that makes up our pattern of mental health services, to take patients who are recognized as suitable for admission to those hospitals by the consultants in charge of them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members co-operate I shall hope to be able to call all those who wish to question the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the steps that will be taken to strengthen the management at the hospital—the new review board—and the proposal to associate people from outside Rampton and the other special hospitals with their general management. I also join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to the staff, who have an intensely difficult job at Rampton and the other special hospitals.
Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the publicity surrounding the hospitals? Are not short press visits by

people who inevitably know little about the problems inside the hospitals likely to create difficulties for staff and patients and is there not a need for great discretion on the part of the media if they are not to intensify already difficult situations?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the main thrust of my statement. I agree wholeheartedly that the work of the staff at Rampton and other special hospitals is intensely difficult. They are dealing with some of the most difficult patients with whom we are asked to cope. By definition, those patients are classified dangerous, violent or criminal. We constantly have to bear in mind the nature of that work when we are considering these problems. It is invaluable that my hon. Friend has pointed that out.
I assure my hon. Friend that those responsible for making arrangements for press visits carefully chose the journalists who visit hospitals. They are those who have an understanding of the problems that they will be studying and they can, one hopes, be relied upon to treat the matter seriously and not sensationally. Visits by television crews are always a difficult matter, for reasons of internal security and the personal privacy of patients. Many consents have to be obtained before there is any question of admitting television cameras to a hospital such as Rampton.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents, particularly those who work at Rampton, will welcome the report, the fact that it states that the team found much that is good, and the tributes paid to the professional dedication and hard work of those in this dangerous job? There will be no trouble with about 200 of the 205 recommendations. On the remaining four or five, the staff are willing to talk about the flexibility of hours and other such matters. In general, it is a report to be welcomed.
However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to page 1, where the team reports that it found no evidence of ill treatment in Rampton. The committee was allowed access everywhere. It had its own keys, and was allowed to talk to everybody, both patients and staff.


It came across no evidence of ill-treatment. Yet the Yorkshire Television programme alleged that the standard practice for subduing patients was to throttle them with a wet towel; that female patients were kept naked and whipped with chains; that there was a torture chamber stained with blood, where women had scratched at the walls to get out; and that patients were kicked and beaten with rubber plimsolls. The report proves that those are not standard practices.
Is it not a fact that the Government—any Government—must do something about trial by television—show trials where the prosecution presents its case and witnesses for the defence are not interviewed, or have no chance of making a counter-statement? Statements are flashed on television screens from notoriously unstable ex-patients and broadcast as though they were the truth and nothing but the truth. Have not such programmes set back places such as Rampton many years, and soured relations between the staff and their neighbours outside the hospital? Was not that programme in general to be deplored?

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to pay tribute to the helpful and responsible way in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with an extremely difficult situation in his constituency following the showing of the Yorkshire Television film. I should like the House to know that that is sincerely meant.
I must make clear at the start that Sir John Boynton's review was not concerned with the allegations of violence and brutality. I saw a preview of the film and I decided before it was shown on television that the only way of dealing with it was to refer the matter to the police and eventually to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir John's review was expressly precluded from examining any of the matters that were properly the the subject of police investigation. As far as I am aware, the team had only one, rather ancient, allegation of violence referred to it. It did what I had asked, which was to refer it immediately to the police. The two matters must be kept separate. Where charges have been preferred matters are sub judice and the police investigations have not finished.
It would be unwise for me to pass any general comment on the television programme. It is part of the benefit of a free press that, however uncomfortable it may be for us at any particular time, when things are going wrong and someone wishes to bring the matter to public attention—I hope always responsibly—that can be done. It would be difficult for me to put my hand on my heart and say that without the YTV programme there would have been a Boynton review. I doubt whether there would have been.
My predecessor was aware of some of the difficulties at Rampton and he tried to do something about them, but some good may come from the fact that the programme brought matters to the public's view in the way that it did. However, I entirely understand and have sympathy with the stresses, strains and difficulties that the hon. Gentleman's constituents faced in the months following that programme. I hope that the report will have gone some way to clear the air and that we can look forward to the future and not dwell too much on the unhappy events of the past.

Sir Frederick Burden: I hope that my my right hon. Friend will look upon the report as an encouragement to investigate the situation in a number of other special hospitals. Will he look, in particular, into the position at Leybourne Grange, in Kent. There is no doubt that the staff are dedicated and do their utmost in the conditions, and with the equipment they possess. I believe, however, that such hospitals are often brushed aside in the general arrangements for improving such places. People are there for no other reason than a mental disability for which no blame can be attached. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, in a spirit of compassion, that proper conditions apply in these places and that the staff possess the equipment that they need?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has raised a valid point. Leybourne Grange is a hospital managed by the Kent area health authority. If difficulties are being experienced there—I have had none drawn to my attention—this is a matter in the first instance for the authority. The health advisory service has a roving role to visit hospitals and to assess the quality of care and standards of management


being followed at long-stay hospitals. This is one way in which we can monitor the quality of care received by mental patients. By definition, mental patients are perhaps a good deal more vulnerable than many other patients. That imposes on us—Ministers and all concerned—an added responsibility to see that such vulnerability is not abused or taken advantage of.

Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State accept that there was great public concern over the Yorkshire Television programme, not only for the content but because of the source—the fact that this information should come through an ITV company rather than a Government watchdog committee? Was there not a strong case for bringing out an interim report to clear the air rather than waiting for the excellent but much fuller report from Sir John Boynton? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why prison visiting should not be extended to all people held in custody, irrespective of their mental or physical state? When the Rampton hospital board is set up, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having representatives both of the Prison Officers' Association and of the patients?

Mr. Jenkin: It would have been difficult for Sir John to issue an interim report, given that the main purpose of the television broadcast was to expose allegations of brutality. Those allegations were outside Sir John's terms of reference and were referred, as I have explained, to the police. I believe that Sir John's report has been well worth waiting for. It is extremely well written. It is very thorough. It provides a valuable blueprint for the review board that I hope to set up shortly.
Rampton is not a prison; it is a hospital. The persons treated there are patients. The nursing staff has special training in psychiatric nursing, either as fully trained nurses or as trainee nurses. To refer, in this context, to prison visitors is perhaps a little unfortunate, as I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will recognise. Part of the criticism of Ramp-ton, as the report says, relates to the nurses' uniforms. This is because some staff have seen their role as more custodial than therapeutic.
This is part of the inherited attitudes of the past, to which the report has been at pains to draw attention and to suggest a way out of. We want the fresh air of outside scrutiny blowing through Ramp-ton. The accusation of the secret hospital has some validity. It is in no one's interest, certainly not the staff or the patients, that the appellation "secret hospital" should remain. It will require a good deal of patience on the part of all concerned to change that, but we are determined to do it.

Sir Graham Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two of the four special hospitals that he mentioned—Moss Side and Park Lane—are in a residential area in my constituency? I appreciate that it is necessary to rehabilitate some of the patients who are fit for it by gradually allowing more freedom, but is it not just as important to assure the residents in the area of safety against the relapse of those being rehabilitated by freedom?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand entirely my right hon. Friend's concern, which he expresses fairly and moderately on behalf of his constituents. I am satisfied that security in all four special hospitals is of a very high order. That must remain the situation. It is crucial that the safety of the public should have a high priority. At the same time, it is right that when the doctors, in consultation with the other professions, as now happens, consider that a patient can be released on parole, such a step should not be precluded because of an over-zealous attention to security. There was an unfortunate episode earlier this year at Broadmoor—the case of Ronald Sailes—which achieved wide publicity. As a result, some procedures have been strengthened and improved, notably the question of alerting the police where a patient is let out on parole.
My right hon. Friend will understand that the clinical and therapeutic work of doctors and nurses to whom we give the onerous responsibility of caring for these patients would become more difficult if they could not see, as the result of their work, the prospect of improvement, leading in some cases to the eventual release of patients into the community. If that were not possible I would have thought that any kind of work in a hospital such as Broadmoor or Rampton would become intolerable.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that the report paints a depressing picture of a hospital that has lacked proper professional leadership and where the quality of life has fallen well below what are considered acceptable standards? While part of the responsibility must rest with the attitude of staff, the major responsibility necessarily rests at the feet of this Department, which is firmly and directly responsible for the running of the four special hospitals?
Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors failed to implement the recommendations of the Elliot report in 1973 and the more recent unpublished report on psychiatric training. Had they been implemented, many of these recommendations might have obviated the need for this sudden, important inquiry which came about only because of the public outcry occasioned by the television programme. Why, in particular, is the Secretary of State only now taking action to transfer 50 patients who have been waiting for two years for transfer to NHS hospitals? Why has he not taken action along those lines before, when complaints have been made from both sides of the House on the issue?
What is the Secretary of State intending to do about the 130 patients in the hospital whom the Boynton report says should not be there and who are therefore presumably being illegally detained? Although one accepts that it is a hospital and not a prison, the Minister must also accept that it is a maximum security hospital. There are tremendous security conditions at the hospital. It is a secret institution. While it may be inappropriate to have prison visitors, it would be right and proper to have an independent lay inspectorate of the hospital and its conditions. Will the right hon. Gentleman not think about that?

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts over many years to secure the right of transfer to other hospitals of patients from the special hospitals. It is a subject to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted considerable energy. He is not wholly fair to my predecessor or myself in suggesting that nothing has been done. The figures for transfers from

Rampton to other hospitals, including the Eastdale unit at the Balderton hospital nearby over the last five years have been 83, 72, 80, 74, and, for the first half of this year, 36. The Dell report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, showed that the main obstacle was getting the acceptance of the receiving hospital to take the patients from Rampton.
The hon. Gentleman has been forthright in his comments about some staff attitudes. It is also possible that some of the medical attitudes have made it difficult for patients to be transferred. I am sure that the most important step to get transfers of this sort is proper consultant contact to satisfy both parties that the transfer is appropriate for a particular patient. I hope that we can build on that.
The hon. Gentleman favours a lay inspectorate. I see the role of the review board in that light. It will have the responsibility for carrying forward the recommendations but it will also be an outside lay body, which is able to supervise the implementation of the report and the running of the hospital. We have the question of wider monitoring under review and I shall direct some remarks to it when I reply to the third report of the Select Committee, to which we shall be giving an answer shortly.

Mrs. Knight: Now that the necessary and important report has been made with great scrupulousness and efficiency, and now that almost all of its recommendations have been accepted, is my right hon. Friend really convinced that, given the existence of all the other watchdog bodies, and since the report has been published and is known to all the staff at Rampton, it is strictly necessary to set up a review body for this lone hospital? How many members does he envisage will be on the board, and what will it cost?

Mr. Jenkin: It has been recognised for some time that there are considerable difficulties in hospitals that are run directly by the Department of Health and Social Security, as are all special hospitals. The report brings out clearly that the relationship between the dedicated officials who bear the burden of the work and the hopsitals is not easy, particularly when distance is involved as it is at Rampton. The central recommendation


of the report is that there local review board.
We are making efforts to find people from the regions concerned who can bring to bear their skills, experience and expertise to help the new management of the hospital to achieve the reforms that, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, have been mooted before in earlier reports but on which little progress has been made. We must sustain the impetus. The suggestion is that the review board should exist for three years in the first instance. It is a valuable suggestion, and it is right to give it a try.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the stars of the Yorkshire Television programme, Steven Wilkins, was subsequently transferred, and immediately went out and murdered my constituent, Sidney Mowitt, of Coldstream, with a knife? Is he further aware that it is possible that the press attention that Steven Wilkins received could have contributed to his disturbed state of mind? Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about the role of the press in this sad story? Will he make it clear that the safety of society is as important as the interests of patients at Rampton and, indeed, as the freedom of the press? The Secretary of State referred to people being made uncomfortable by the freedom of the press. Does he accept that my constituent is not uncomfortable—he is dead?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for the charges that he makes against the press. I am not aware of the details of the case to which he refers. It is right to reiterate that the safety of the public must always have the highest priority. That is what a maximum security hospital is all about. Such a hospital exists to ensure that people with exceedingly dangerous propensities are held in secure conditions so that the public can be as satisfied as possible that their safety is being looked after.

Miss Fookes: May I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of appointing a strong medical director as soon as possible, since that would give the sense of direction, which so far has been lacking? Will he confirm that the director

—or whatever title he may be given—should be a will be given full powers?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes. My hon. Friend visited the hospital as a member of the all-party mental health group and saw for herself some of the difficulties. This is a central recommendation of the report. We intend to appoint a person with considerable leadership. Leadership is the key. We need someone with leadership capability who can lead the professional teams and the hospital as a whole in the work that needs to be done. I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as his predecessor I warmly welcome the very thorough report, its recommendations, and the responses in his initial statement and in his answers to questions put to him this afternoon? Is he aware how warmly I welcome the statement by Sir John Boynton in his report about the tireless care and attention that the staff at Rampton give to their patients? Does he share my hope that this will do much to raise the morale of people who are undertaking a difficult task?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the staff at the hospital. A great deal of fine work is done at Rampton in spite of the difficulties and the management problems under which the staff have had to work. We must move ahead and look to the future. An enormously valuable compendium of advice and guidance is contained in the Boynton report and we must make the best of it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). Does my right hon. Friend envisage this important appointment to be broadly analagous to that of the physician superintendent at Broadmoor hospital? If he does, does he appreciate that finding a man or a woman who combines qualities of leadership, professional expertise and organisational skill will not be easy, to put is mildly? However, that does not make the recommendation bad. Does my right hon. Friend understand how welcome are his understanding words about the staffs at the special hospitals?


As one who sought to cool it at the appropriate professional conference, may I remind him that honourable men and honourable women who are doing a difficult task are getting close to the end of their tether?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. The reports that I have seen of what my hon. Friend said in the face of the anxieties expressed to him by the staff at special hospitals are entirely admirable and I thank him.
I do not wish to add further to what I have said about the qualities that we are looking for in the medical director for Rampton. Certainly, Dr. McGrath, the medical director at Broadmoor, has established an unparalleled reputation as the manager of a hospital under extremely difficult circumstances. He deserves the highest praise. If we can find someone of his calibre to run Rampton we shall be doing extremely well.

Mr. Whitehead: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the measured words that he used about the media and other organisations involved in the welfare of patients at Rampton? As he said, without them we might not have had the Boynton report.
I refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Why is the right hon. Gentleman optimistic that he can persuade regional health authorities that either the Dell report or chapter 15 of the Boynton report is applicable to them, since they have consistently refused to build interim secure units and have often confined patients to Rampton when they need not have gone there, and since they are not often willing to take patients who need to be transferred from Rampton?

Mr. Jenkin: I am opening the first regional secure unit the week after next. It is a valuable stage, but I recognise that we have a long way to go. The hon. Gentleman referred to interim secure units. I have discovered something which has long puzzled me. There is a curious misunderstanding by many members of the nursing staffs in particular about what is meant by an interim secure unit. Some staff members regard such units as assessment centres where patients are sent in the interim. They are not intended

for that purpose. They are intended to be secure units, if necessary for long-stay patients, to be operated only until a full regional secure unit is built. I am considering how, in mental hospitals and in the places where the units will be built, we can achieve a better understanding about their precise purpose. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Christopher Price: What changes is the Secretary of State considering for the special hospitals operating committee within his Department? Is it really sensible for the four special hospitals to be operated by an anonymous committee of civil servants, which cannot be contacted by those with sensible suggestions to make about the operation of the hospitals? Would it not be better if SHOC was a more open body with the names of the individuals involved made public? It would then operate openly rather than in a secret manner.

Mr. Jenkin: There is a great deal of merit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As the Boynton committee recommended, I shall consider carefully the future management pattern for the special hospitals. As I indicated earlier, there are difficulties with direct management of those large and important institutions by my Department. Although those concerned have carried out their work with great dedication it is not necessarily the most suitable way. I shall consider whether there is a better way that we can build into the future.

Mr. Fell: I apologise for the fact that I am only now rising. I do so because, in answer to a previous question, the Minister spoke about interim secure units. He may know that I have been in correspondence with his Department in Norwich about that issue. As I understand the matter, once a decision has been made the Minister has no power over the way in which an interim secure unit should be run. That is a serious matter, because the area health authority has carte blanche. As soon as the Minister has made his decision in principle that a unit will be built, the local health authority can do what it likes. It can start an interim unit, which can run for as long as five years, until the new unit is built in the old hospital. If that is true, it is a dreadful matter. I trust


that the Minister will help us on that matter.

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not my view of my accountability to the House about the way in which the National Health Service is run. I wish to consider in some detail my hon. Friend's remarks about the interim secure unit to which he referred. Any health authority is expected to comply with broad Government policy in the running of the Heath Service. It is a difficult and complicated question. I shall be dealing precisely with the question of my accountability and the autonomy of health authorities when I reply to the third report of the Select Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).

Mr. Moyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that I agree with him that without the catalyst of Yorkshire Television we should not have had the Boynton report? I asked one question that he did not answer, probably inadvertently. Does he now intend to negotiate the implementation of the changes in staff conditions recommended by Boynton to improve the position in the hospital? He said that he did not require more resources but that he wanted a change in attitude. How is it proposed to do away with the 14-hour shift without buying it out?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not appreciate that I said that it was a matter for the review board to take forward the implementation of the recommendations in the report, including those on terms and conditions of service. That will have to be done in negotiation with the staff association involved, which is the Prison Officers' Association, which represents the nurses at the hospital.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the spending of public moneys by the Secretary of State for Scotland without the approval of the House and in anticipation of

legislation that has not yet been presented to, or approved by the House, and dealing with the question of the assisted places scheme relating to private schools in Scotland.
I am glad to see that the Patronage Secretary has decided to stay in the Chamber to listen to my application under Standing Order No. 9. This is the fourth or fifth occasion during this long Session that I have complained bitterly about the way in which the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Scottish Office Ministers have treated the House. I regard this matter as being by far the most serious of all complaints that I have waged against the Scottish Office during this Session.
The Scotsman newspaper this morning printed an article under the heading
Tories take the plunge on private schools plan".
I shall quote briefly from the article. It states:
Publicity material for parents on the Scottish private schools assisted places scheme is being issued by the Government before they have sought parliamentary approval for the proposals.
And within two weeks the Scottish Education Department will also be publishing a list of up to 45 schools taking part at a cost next year of £750,000 and rising to more than £3 million in five years.
A leaflet, Assisted Places Scheme, a Brief Guide for Parents, describing how the scheme will operate in Scotland was published yesterday by the SED.

'ACT QUICKLY'

Though the leaflet points out that the scheme is still subject to parliamentary approval it urges parents to 'act quickly' if they want to apply for an assisted place for September next year.

The scheme will be bitterly opposed by Scottish Labour MPs when presented in an Education Bill in the forthcoming session, but the Government are confident that their parliamentary majority will ensure that their proposals are unaltered.

A Scottish Office spokesman confirmed yesterday that it had been decided to issue the guide now because many of the private schools involved were beginning to plan their intakes for next year. The Education (Scotland) Bill is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next summer."

The Education (Scotland) Bill, far from not receiving Royal Assent until next summer, has not even been intimated to the House as being part of the Government's legislative programme. We have not heard anything about the contents of the Queen's Speech, which we shall hear


when the new Session begins on 20 November. Of all the complaints that I have made against the Scottish Office, this is the clearest indication that the Scottish Office has a complete disregard for Parliament. I am bound to say to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that if that sort of conduct is allowed to continue—we are told through the publication of a leaflet that a Bill not yet intimated to the House is to be introduced, and that there will be no alteration to the Bill—it is pointless for any Member of Parliament to come to the House to discuss the matter. Through the article in The Scotsman, and on the say-so of the Scottish Education Department, the Government are saying that the proposals will remain unaltered. Surely that is a most serious position to face the House in considering legislation. This matter is of vital importance to the rights of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

I can imagine what would have happened had the previous Labour Government sought to take such measures without the approval of the House. That never happened, because no democratically elected Government would ever seek to usurp the will and the authority of the House. I cannot argue the merits of the assisted places scheme, as much as I should like to do so. The leaflet goes into great detail. It is not a general leaflet. It defines the income limits for parents, the parental contribution that will be required and the grants available—all that in anticipation of legislation that we have not yet seen, let alone had intimated to the House.

I must ask you to give the most serious consideration to my application, Mr. Speaker, because if one Department can do what I have described and get away with it, God knows what the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary

of State for Industry will try. If the matter is allowed to go on and the Secretary of State for Scotland is not called before the House tomorrow to answer for what has appeared in The Scotsman today, and the leaflets issued yesterday we shall be moving along the road to the time when Parliament need not meet, when all that we need wait on are edicts from various Government Departments, with our system becoming a dictatorship rather than democracy.

The Scottish Office has much to answer for because of the way in which it has treated the House. Against that background, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to grant my application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the spending of public moneys by the Secretary of State for Scotland without the approval of the House and in anticipation of legislation that has not yet been presented to, or approved by the House, and dealing with the question of the assisted places scheme relating to private schools in Scotland.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, for I have no doubt that he raised a very important issue. But I do not decide whether the House shall debate the matter; I decide merely whether there can be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night. I am directed not to give any reasons for my decision.
Although I listened very carefully and with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Carlisle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 so as to provide that where a child or young person is found guilty of any offence of criminal damage for the commission of which a fine or costs may be imposed or a compensation order may be made under section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 if the court is of the opinion that the case would be best met by the imposition of a fine or costs or the making of such an order whether with or without any other punishment, the court shall order that the fine, compensation or costs awarded be paid by the parent, or guardian of the child or young person, instead of by the child or young person.
The Bill will amend section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by making it compulsory for magistrates to impose upon parents of 14- to 17-yearold offenders the fines and compensation orders that result from acts of criminal damage by those offenders. At present the magistrates can exercise their discretion whether to impose parental responsibility, and evidence suggests that they are often reluctant to do so.
The Bill coincides with the recent Government White Paper on young offenders. I am pleased to note that the Government also consider it important to emphasise that the present provisions are inadequate in this respect.
The initiative for introducing this intended legislation has come from my county authority in Bedfordshire, which formed a working party to investigate and recommend measures to combat the increasing violence in our county. Its report emphatically laid much of the blame upon poor parental control, public apathy and lack of co-operation with the police. It saw the need further to amend the 1933 Act.
I congratulate the working party on its findings and its diligence. Regrettably, it could draw on much experience of vandalism in our county, particularly in the southern area, in which my constituency lies. There are few tower blocks, schools, places of worship or shopping precincts in Luton that are not now desecrated by some form of graffiti. Daily acts of violence against persons and property are now too numerous even to be reported

by the local media. The better the facilities that are offered, the more they are a target for marauding thugs—which is all that they are.
For example, only a fortnight ago in my constituency the foundations of a community centre were dug. The centre has received much public support and public money. Within a week of the foundations being dug, the very people for whom the centre was built had desecrated and vandalised some of the works. Not many nights now pass in Luton without the sound of breaking glass.
Statistics tell us that crime is increasing by about 10 per cent. a year. In major cities the figures are even worse. Vandalism costs over £100 million a year to the public purse. Damage to schools is estimated at £15 million and to telephone kiosks at £1 million. British Rail's bill is over £3 million.
Since my intention to introduce the Bill was made known, I have received letters from all over the country relating terrifying personal experiences: old people's windows smashed by children; shop fronts destroyed by football hooligans; newly planted trees uprooted; new house walls sprayed with graffiti; and even warehouses and factories set alight.
If we add to that the daily national reports of Tube and train violence, daytime muggings and constant theft, we see that the backcloth to Britain's so-called peaceful society becomes a rather ugly painting.
The present Government were elected on a ticket to restore dignity and pride to family life, believing that a sound, disciplined background would add respect to our education system and responsibility to parental control. I admit that there are some parents who need assistance in bringing up their children. There are families for whom social and employment problems create special difficulties. But I believe that for too long our judicial administrators have been hiding behind that minority as the excuse for releasing the majority from their full parental obligation.
Children who suffer lack of guidance are not often beyond parental capability They are encouraged to break the law by their parents absolving themselves of all responsibility. It is too easy to hide


behind the "I cannot control him" excuse, or even the "His social worker does not understand him" syndrome.
Many parents do not bother with a simple form of discipline, probably because they fail to practise it in their own lives. Many would rather stay ignorant of their offspring's action, because their ignorance covers up for their own moral inadequacies and misdemeanours. Everyone apart from themselves is blamed—the school; the teachers; the council, for not providing facilities; even the State, for an inadequate supply of constant entertainment. Never is it considered that a stronger family life might have prevented the birds from flying from the family nest so early.
I commend the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), who, finding that two children in his constituency had desecrated a local playgroup's premises, admonished the parents. The children went back and repaired the damage that they had done. I understand that there is no further problem there.
Parents must learn to accept responsibility, or have it forced upon them. Too often a fine or compensation order upon a young person is left unpaid, and criminal and parents alike often laugh their way out of court at their good fortune.
It must be accepted that fines are often the only sentences left open to magistrates. In these days of prison difficulties they may be the only course at present. Such a deterrent, if payment is pursued, may be as effective as the short, sharp shock, but only if it means a heavy financial imposition that will hurt the parent as well as the child. The adult choice of paying or imprisonment will be a salutary reminder to an erring parent who had thought that his child's action was someone else's responsibility.
Men who are on short-time or are receiving unemployment benefit will not take kindly to paying for the local bakery shop window, especially if the bill runs into several hundreds of pounds.
A lesson in public humiliation also would not go amiss. If the press could name the children who were persistent violent offenders, the parents would share their public shame.
The afflicted often receive nothing but paltry compensation, totally inadequate to deter the criminal or adequately avenge the offence. About £25 million in fines was left unpaid last year. How much longer can the public purse be expected to foot this bill? If the parents default in payment, an inevitable consequence for many of them is that the full force of the law and imprisonment must be inflicted as a further deterrent in the fight against crime.
There must, of course, be a small get out. Parents who were abroad, or those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, would be an obvious exception. But exceptions must be rare; they must apply in an absolute minimum of cases.
The Bill should strike a chord in the hearts and pockets of every parent. It will prove an effective deterrent to the intending juvenile criminal and to parents alike. It will return responsibility to family life and discipline to dissenting households. I ask the House to grant it a Second Reading.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before saying why I wish to oppose the Bill, may I say that I believe it to be a gross abuse of the House for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) to seek to introduce a Bill when we have only two days left in this Session and when he knows very well that there is no conceivable way in which the Bill could go through any of its stages this Session? Therefore, clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is engaged in today is a mere public relations publicity exercise rather than a serious attempt to amend the law as he suggests.
The Bill would provide that whenever a court imposed a fine, a compensation order or costs upon a juvenile convicted of criminal damage, it should order that the fine be paid by the child's parents or guardian instead of by the child.
I accept that there is widespread agreement on both sides of the House that there are some occasions on which it is


reasonable and proper to oblige parents to pay fines imposed upon young offenders, but I think that it is equally agreed on both sides of the House that there are other occasions on which it would be both unreasonable and harmful to insist that a fine be paid by an offender's parents.
In the previous Labour Government's Criminal Law Act 1977 the courts were given the power in certain circumstances to oblige parents to pay fines. One argument for that measure was precisely the argument that has been used by the hon. Gentleman—that it may encourage parents to take more responsibility for the actions of their children. I do not think that anyone in the House would dissent from that intention and the acceptance of parents taking responsibility for the disciplining and control of their children.
Under the provisions of the 1977 Act a court may—indeed, it must if an offender is under 14 years of age—order a parent or guardian to pay a financial penalty imposed on a juvenile offender unless it is satisfied that the parents have not neglected to exercise due care and control of the young person.
The Government, in their White Paper "Young Offenders", argue that the courts may have been reluctant to use that power—it has been used very sparingly—because of their uncertainty about its precise scope. Therefore, the White Paper proposes that parents should be required to pay their children's fines unless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court thinks that it would be unreasonable to make them pay. There are varying views whether that proposal would be an improvement on the present law. No doubt we shall be discussing that matter in the months ahead.
The point is that neither the present law nor the Government's proposals in the White Paper would require parents to pay fines in every case. I believe that such a requirement would be both unreasonable and unacceptable. In some cases parents may have done everything reasonable to ensure that their child was disciplined and controlled and abided by the impositions placed upon him. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to penalise parents who, through no fault of their

own, unwittingly and unintentionally are unable to control their child.
In other cases—I think that the hon. Gentleman should have made this point—magistrates may consider that if the fine is to have any value it should be paid by the offender—the child. He should not be allowed to slough off the responsibility on to his parents and blithely go on committing further offences knowing that he will not be made directly responsible for whatever restitution is called for.
It seems remarkable that if we are asking for greater responsibility and discipline it should be placed not where it would be most appropriately placed—on the offender—but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in all cases on his or her parents.
In other cases, young offenders or delinquents may be at odds with their parents. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must have come across many such cases. If a fine were to be imposed upon a parent without the court having any discretion, the resulting resentment, bitterness and frustration could harm family relationships even more than they currently are within that context and might place that juvenile or offender at greater risk than he was previously or would otherwise be.
There is the problem that we have to anticipate of the parent of a particularly recalcitrant offender who has done everything in his power to control him. There may be nothing more that he could reasonably be expected to do to discipline him. There may be bad blood between them and the parent may not physically be able to control his physically adult child. There may be resentment and bitterness and no ties of kinship. If such a parent is ordered to pay a fine, he may say "No. I have done everything that I can. I am not responsible. I am not physically capable of controlling the child." If that parent refuses to pay the fine, having done no wrong, perhaps being incompetent in some way but not wilfully culpable, he will end up in prison, as a fine defaulter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that respectable, decent, law-abiding parents who are fulfilling their responsibilities to their children as best they can, albeit incompetently, should, through no fault of their own, be imprisoned.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking away the flexibility that the courts now possess. Under the present law, passed by the previous Labour Government, and under the proposals outlined in the Government's White Paper "Young Offenders", this power would exist but would be retained by the courts for use in a flexible and imaginative manner. Magistrates have discretion to distinguish between cases where making a parent pay a fine would be an appropriate course of action and other cases where to do so would be unfair and perhaps potentially damaging.

The hon. Gentleman's Bill would give no such discretion to the courts, but would require payments in all cases where fines, compensation orders or costs have been imposed upon juveniles. For that reason alone, despite the merits of the case, I believe that the Bill should be opposed as a reprimand to the hon. Member for Luton, West for abusing the procedures of the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 133.

Division No. 493]
AYES
[4.35 p.m.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Grylis, Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parris, Matthew


Best, Keith
Hawkins, Paul
Patten, John (Oxford)


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Bright, Graham
Hill, James
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brinton, Tim
Hooson, Tom
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhodes James, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Budgen, Nick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shersby, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Butcher, John
Latham, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Martin


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Costain, Sir Albert
McQuarrie, Albert
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch, David
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mawby, Ray
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Warren, Kenneth


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wheeler, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wolfson Mark


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)



Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Greenway, Harry
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Tom Benyon.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Alton, David
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dobson, Frank
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas, Dick
Haynes, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dubs, Alfred
Hefter, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Eastham, Ken
Homewood, William


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howells, Geraint


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (Hull Nest)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Foot, Rt Hon Mlchael
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Foster, Derek
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foulkes, George
Kerr, Russell


Cryer, Bob
Freud, Clement
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Graham, Ted
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lyon, Alexander (York)




Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
O'Neill, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Hugh
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Park, George
Straw, Jack


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McKelvey, William
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robertson, George
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Weetch, Ken


Maxton, John
Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Michael


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sever, John
Winnick, David


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Short, Mrs Renée
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius



Morton, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Newens, Stanley
Soley, Clive
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Stan Thorne.


O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise two related points of order but, for the sake of brevity and clarity, deal with each one in turn.
The first concerns the availability of papers to this House. I understand that it is the convention of the House that Bills and Lords amendments to Bills which are to be discussed in this House are published in time for right hon. and hon. Members to make serious estimates of their contents before we proceed to debate them. Traditionally, that convention has been interpreted as making at least a weekend elapse between the publication of a document and its being debated on the Floor of the House.
On Friday, the Government published 265 Lords amendments to the Bill, leaving the House with what I think all right hon. and hon. Members will agree is the minimum tolerable period—Saturday, Sunday and Monday—for the assimilation and understanding of those amendments. It transpires that, some time yesterday, 28 corrections to those amendments appeared in the Vote Office, some of them of very great complexity. Therefore, it was not possible for right hon. and hon. Members to know the contents of 28 of the Lords amendments to the Bill until after lunch time on the day before we were to debate them.
It is intolerable that this House should be asked to examine these complex matters with literally less than 24 hours to read and understand them. If it were simply another example of the incompetence displayed at every stage of the passage of the Bill, I, for my part, would not have raised the matter today. However, if the Government want the House to discuss the amendments in a real sense, we must have time to understand them. If they simply want the House to rubber-stamp the Bill, they will proceed, saying that the time does not matter.
I wish to ask two questions. First, I ask what protection you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker himself can provide for those of us who want to understand what we are debating before we vote according to the recommendations of our respective Whips.
My second question is directed to the Government. I do not even hope that the Government will postpone the entire proceedings on this Bill. As the Secretary of State implemented some of its provisions in September, he naturally wants to get it on to the statute book at the first opportunity so that his action can be retrospectively legitimised. However, there is a compromise which the Minister, Chief Whip, or even the Leader of the House—if he is about somewhere—might consider.
I understand that within the rules of order it is possible for the Government to propose that the 28 amendments of which we received notice only yesterday should be abstracted from our consideration today, taken out of order and discussed tomorrow, when we will have had 48 hours rather than 24 hours to consider them. As well as asking for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Government to consider whether they are prepared to give that minimum courtesy to the House. It affects only 28 amendments about which we did not know until yesterday, and I suggest that they should be debated tomorrow rather than today.

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members, including myself, who did not serve on the Committee have spent many hours going through the Bill and the amendments in order to make a contribution today. We tried to do some of that work at the weekend. It was, therefore, of great concern to us that when we went to the Vote Office yesterday we discovered a correction sheet.
If you look at that sheet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that these are not merely trivial omissions of a typing error kind but that some are major omissions which substantively alter the amendments already put forward in the House of Lords. For example, I draw your attention to amendment 4C, which has the effect of giving the Secretary of State


a discretion rather than imposing a duty upon him. That is of major significance. It takes time to determine what attitude hon. Members should adopt, yet effectively we have had no time whatever to consider these amendments.
In my submission, it is an abuse of the privileges of the House for the Government to act in the way that they have. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take cognisance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said and to put all the pressure and moral authority which the Chair can upon the Government so that they adopt his suggestion that we debate these additional amendments tomorrow.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to labour this point, but many hon. Members representing Inner London constituencies who did not serve on the Committee, and whose constituents' prospects are likely to be seriously affected one way or the other, have had a monstrous task. This place is a law factory. We may get marks for productivity at the end of today, but it is fairly likely that we shall produce some inferior and shoddy products unless we accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
I understand that the convention of the House is that Lords amendments should be made available to hon. Members who should have at least a weekend to consider them. I suspect that the conventions are normally geared to the three or four pages of amendments that we can expect from the other place rather than to 94 pages of amendments, which some of us have tried to assimilate during the weekend. As a result, we were rather devastated yesterday when we were presented with four pages of further amendments, which has made a farce of what some of us have tried to do. They relate to matters of great importance.
Certainly, with regard to the area that I represent, I have not been able to assimilate the effect of these corrections on the Inner London Education Authority. At this moment, I do not understand what the effect will be. What I do understand is that the object of the Bill is to transform

the circumstances of the ILEA, which provides an education for children in inner London, including my own area. To that extent, I declare an interest. However, presented as I am with this latest list of amendments to amendments, I cannot discharge my obligation to my electorate to assess whether the amendments improve the Bill or make it worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have sympathy with the point of order that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his hon. Friends. It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the papers are available. The timing of the debate is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister will have heard what has been said. In view of what has happened, perhaps the most helpful thing that I can say is that, if hon. Members wish to submit manuscript amendments as we proceed, they will be considered by Mr. Speaker in the normal way.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said. I understand and accept at once that you can go no further. However, if we are to be treated with even a modicum of courtesy, I hope that the Minister will comment on my suggestion. The thought that he would not even reply never struck me. Perhaps he will now bring himself to say something.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): We can perhaps understand why today of all days there may be some element of hyperbole from Labour Members. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman addressed a point of order to the Chair. I do not think that it was proper for me to reply.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware, there was unfortunately an error in the printing in that the amendments referred to on the supplementary list were omitted by the printer. They were supplied by the Government but, unfortunately, were not included. That is a matter for the Chair. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for the fact that hon. Members may have been inconvenienced. However, the right hon. Gentleman addressed his point of order to the


Chair and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite properly replied. I add my concern that there may not have been as much time as the Government would have wished for hon. Members to consider these amendments, but the matter was not within our control.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am advised that on these 28 amendments alone—I ask for nothing in relation to the other 237—it is within the Government's power to abstract them from today's business, take them out of order and give the House an opportunity to discuss them tomorrow when we have had another 24 hours to understand what they mean. Can the Minister say whether the Government are even prepared to consider that suggestion, or do they dismiss it out of hand?

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for clarification. I think I am right in saying that when you replied to my right hon. Friend you said that this was a matter for the Government. However, the Minister denied that it was a matter for the Government and said that it was a matter for the Chair because this was an error in printing rather than an error in the directions given to the printers. Perhaps we can have some clarification as to whose responsibility it is. If it is your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely it lies within your power to insist that these matters be discussed tomorrow rather than today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The responsibility of the Chair is to ensure that papers are available. The timing of the debate is wholly a matter for the Government and the usual channels.

Mr. King: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but I do not feel that the action which he suggests would be justified. I remind the House that discussions on the Bill commenced last December. A number of these matters arose many months ago in this House and more than a month ago in the other place. Those hon. Members who have been concerned about the progress of the Bill will be aware of that. They will also be aware that most of the amendments are either technical or consequential. I have considered the right hon. Gentleman's representations, but I

cannot advise the House to proceed in the way he suggests.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that as there are more than 230 amendments the House could, if it wished, have more than 230 votes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. It would be possible to vote on each of the Lords' amendments.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I can abandon my first point, after the success that I fear we have grown to anticipate, and turn to my second point of order, which relates to a specific clause in the Bill.
5 pm
The provision concerning financing of trading undertakings was amended in the House of Lords. It was initially proposed by the Government and then carried against the Government's advice. On Third Reading the Government announced that they did not propose to try to reverse the decision. The decision imposed on the Government by the other place enabled local authorities to finance capital expenditure from profits on trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against annual capital allocation.
Today the Association of Metropolitan Authorities drew the Government's attention to the need for consequential amendments to the Bill if the amendment that they had accepted—which is part of clause 63—was to be made sense of. The message was sent to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the Government accepted that clause 63 as it now stands cannot be operated in the way in which it was intended to operate. But the Government were not prepared to put down the consequential amendments lest when those amendments were returned to the House of Lords so much time was occupied that the Bill did not make progress at the speed that the Government wished. On their own admission, the Government are offering the House a clause that is inoperable and ineffective.
I raise two points on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first concerns the protection which the House may receive from the Chair against Ministers intentionally


asking hon. Members to support a clause that cannot be operated in the way it should be operated. Secondly, I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was told that, as this clause is related to capital expenditure, the Government would make up for the inadequacy in drafting by making certain additional capital sums available to authorities that might be penalised as a result of the inadequate drafting. We need to know now, simply for business reasons, whether the Government are saying that they are not prepared to amend clause 63 to bring it into line with reality, and whether they will make up for that deficiency by paying local authorities moneys that they have already been promised.
If the Government cannot give a satisfactory answer on those two points, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, consider accepting, very late in the day, a manuscript amendment to rectify the Government's error? With the assistance of Mr. Speaker's staff, Labour Members have tried to put together an appropriate amendment, but the Bill is so complicated and complex, and we are struggling against House of Lords amendments and corrections to House of Lords amendments, that we shall not be in a position until later this evening to put down a correcting amendment.
I hope that the Minister of State will now tell us his attitude towards the deficiencies of clause 63, and say whether he will make an attempt to remedy them, and whether he will make up for the mistakes by paying the moneys that have been promised. If not, may I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there may be need for very late manuscript amendments.

Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that this part of the Bill is inoperable unless the Government move certain further amendments. That is not correct. There has been some misunderstanding about this issue, and I am aware that discussions have been taking place. These are not consequential amendments. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if they were essential and unavoidable consequential

amendments to an amendment that was carried in another place. That is not correct. It is a matter for debate whether further amendments could be made, but the Bill is workable within the spirit of the amendments that were carried in the other place. That can be observed. When we debate the matter, I shall be happy to give the House clarification and assurance on that point.
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that we can debate the Lords amendments out of order. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook implied that the Government are proposing to accept an amendment that in some sense will be deficient or inoperable. That is not the case, and I shall be happy to enlarge on that during the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a political matter; it is not one for the Chair. May I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the delay and the complexity of the Bill, Mr. Speaker would certainly consider manuscript amendments in the usual way if they are submitted to him. Shall we now proceed with the Bill?

Clause 1

RELAXATION OF MINISTERIAL CONTROL OF AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 7, leave out from "to" to second "to" in line 9 and insert "a right of appeal"

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 158 to 168, 223, 233 to 241, and 264.

Mr. Fox: Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are technical and merely correct the drafting of clause 1 so that it accurately reflects the contents of the schedule that is dependent upon it.
Amendment No. 4 makes a minor correction to the drafting of subsection (6) so as to reflect more accurately the contents of schedule 6. It adds new subsections (7) and (8) which introduce respectively the highways and road traffic


provisions of a new schedule to follow schedule 6.
Amendment No. 168 adds a new schedule to the Bill, after schedule 6. This restores to the Bill provisions which had originally been included in the No. 1 Bill but which were omitted from the No. 2 Bill because of pressure of time. However, in the other place we were persuaded to reinstate them in the form of a schedule. They are largely uncontroversial and represent Government policy. They serve to relax ministerial controls over local authorities' highways and road traffic functions. There are many examples, such as the provision of pedestrian crossings and even disputes over bus shelters, which under present legislation have to be referred to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 158 is a drafting amendment that makes the relaxation of controls more specific. Amendment No. 159 deals with the removal of the requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm orders creating smoke control areas. Confirmation will no longer be necessary for orders made in the future, but there are two exceptions for which provision is necessary. The first is a transitional exception because there are a number of smoke control orders that are awaiting confirmation. Some cannot be dealt with before this Bill becomes law because of the need to arrange and hold public inquiries. This amendment provides for those situations to be dealt with under the existing procedures, and for a decision to be made on confirmation.
The second exception concerns future orders that might vary or revoke existing smoke control orders. Undertakings were given in Committee that the removal of controls would not lead to a lowering of national environmental standards. By this amendment we are ensuring that, in the unlikely event of a local authority wishing to revoke smoke control, the decision will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. We regard this ultimate safeguard as important in the implementation of our agreement with the European Community for an air quality standard on smoke and sulphur dioxide.
Amendment No. 160 is a minor correction intended to make clear that the purpose of paragraph 3 of schedule 2 is to delete the words from the second "or"

in section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956. That is to remove the need for the Minister to be involved in any disagreement between local authorities as to which should deal with any premises that straddle the boundaries between them.
Amendment No. 159 rewords paragraph 2 of schedule 2 in order to provide that the power of confirmation will apply to any orders already made but not confirmed at the date of Royal Assent. They also require confirmation for any future order, varying and revoking orders already confirmed by the Secretary of State. This amendment is consequential upon the alterations to paragraph 2.
Amendment No. 166 is consequential on amendments Nos. 162 and 163. These amendments do not alter the Government's intention to relax the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers in respect of condition and use of receptacles for the control of waste.
Amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 236 refer to the prohibition of parking to facilitate street cleaning and are intended to clarify the position under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 now that all but one of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers are to be repealed.
Amendment No. 167 provides for a smooth transition in the removal of the Secretary of State's powers of confirmation of noise abatement orders. It is identical in intention to the first part of amendment No. 159 on smoke control orders and it allows noise abatement orders which have already been made to be completed under the existing procedures.
The effect of amendment No. 223 is to preserve the right of a tenant of a cottage holding to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the refusal of his county council landlord to allow the improvement of that holding.
Amendment No. 233 is a minor correction intended only to make clear that the purpose of paragraph 3 of schedule 2 is to delete the words from the second "or" in section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956. That is to remove the need for the Minister to be involved in any disagreement between local authorities as to which should deal with any premises


which straddle the boundaries between them.
Amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment required to ensure consistency between this schedule and schedule 2, paragraph 3(2), which excluded Scotland from the repeal of the control contained in section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956.
Amendment No. 235 is concerned with paragraph 2 of schedule 2, which removes the requirement in section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for smoke control orders to be confirmed by the Minister. These amendments provide for further repeals consequential upon the loss of this power.
Amendment No. 237 again refers to paragraph 2 of schedule 2, removing the requirement in section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for the smoke control orders to be reconfirmed by the Minister. The amendment provides for further repeals consequential upon the loss of those powers.
Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 are purely technical amendments to remove reference to two provisions which the Bill erroneously repeals.
Amendment No. 264 is again a technical amendment to ensure that the long title is fully consonant with the detailed provisions in schedules 1 to 7. The relaxations of controls contained in the Bill extend not only to local authorities but to other public bodies such as river purification boards, thereby necessitating the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 2

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PUBLISH INFORMATION

Lords Amendment: No. 4A, in page 3, line 8, leave out "and".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4B to 4F and Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8.

Mr. King: These amendments deal with the publication of information. Amendments Nos. 4A to 4F and amendment No. 6 extend the provisions about publication of information to Scotland and to certain types of authority, including police, fire authorities and the Inner London Education Authority.
In addition, amendment No. 7—new clause A—extends the provision to certain other types of public body, including new town development corporations, water authorities and passenger transport executives. This was in response to representations made on each side of the Committee, when the point was made that the merits of the case for publication of more meaningful information should not be restricted to local authorities and that there was a strong case for extending this to other public bodies as well.
I hope, therefore, that these amendments will be supported on each side of the House.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend say what is envisaged with regard to police committees? We already have very full reports under the Police Acts.

Mr. King: These are only enabling powers, and it will be a matter for discussion in this respect to see what might be the most appropriate form, if any, of further information. But, obviously, in legislation of this kind it is desirable that they should be included in case at a later stage there is an argument for such publication of information. It would be only after discussion with the bodies concerned, and there is no intention at the moment to move on that particular provision.
Amendment No. 5 is the paving amendment for amendment No. 8, which places some restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to require the publication of what we call short period indicators. Hon. Members who have studied the clause will know that it deals mainly with the publication of information annually and that it is our intention to encourage the publication of certain other information more frequently than annually. For example, the joint manpower watch, which is operated by local authorities at present, is operated quarterly and


quite sensibly so, because it is not possible to identify trends meaningfully or to take any sensible action about trends in manpower if the figures are available only annually.
To overcome some concern among local authorities that we might be asking for a plethora of different items, and that we would be asking for very frequent publication, we have made clear that we have listed the four items in which we are interested—manpower, planning, housing and land—and that otherwise it will not be possible for the Secretary of State to ask for more frequent publication than annually of any other items unless he comes to this House and by affirmative resolution, gets the support of the House for obtaining such further information. Whatever views hon. Members may hold about affirmative orders, that is a sure protection against a casual decision by some Minister that it might be interesting to get a little more information about this, that or the other matter. He would have to get an affirmative order from the House.
That is a significant improvement and I know that it is one which local authorities have found to be of some reassurance to them.

Mr. Ted Graham: I shall speak first on amendment No. 7 and I intend, after I have had a response on that, to deal with amendment No. 8.
As the Minister quite rightly points out, amendment No. 7 seeks to extend the scope of the application of the powers in the original clause 2 to force, request, direct or order—whatever may be the term to be used in the legislation—local authorities to publish information.
Already the Government have seen fit in clause 2 to lay these obligations on county councils, district councils, the GLC, the London boroughs, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly. Now the Government are intent on adding to that list development corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, water authorities, urban development corporations, passenger transport executives, London Transport Executive—what the Minister in another place called a collection of bodies.
I should like the Minister to be a little more explicit concerning the case that was made in another place for adding

what local authorities—I shall say more about that in speaking to amendment No. 8—say that they are willing to do in this particular matter. The Minister has said that, in effect, he is responding to representations made by, among others, Labour Members in Committee. Frankly, I am not too certain that we were urging the Minister to extend the list of bodies upon which are to be laid the obligations and duties in this matter. We took a very sceptical and caustic view of the necessity for calling upon local authorities at present to spend their money and their time, and the time of their officers, in making available a great deal of that which, as we shall say when we discuss the next group of amendments, is already available.
The Minister in another place talked about widely supported objectives throughout a range of bodies in the public sector. Of course, he gave the game away by referring to many public bodies which already have adequate power to make this information available. He said:
having consulted the various individual organisations concerned, we should take such broad enabling powers as this new clause seeks to provide.
I want the Minister of State to tell the House that, in effect, all of the bodies that are listed have said not only that they are willing to do what the Minister orders them to do but "We want you to order us to do that which the original clause 2 lays down."
Is the Minister of State saying that this additional range of local authorities and public bodies are saying "Please bring to bear some power and force, and insist that we do this in addition to the publicity that we already give to our activities"? For instance, water authorities are already giving some information in their billings and demands for water rates. Is the Minister saying that they have said "Lay upon us a duty to conform in such manner as you prescribe with additional ways of making information about our activities available"? Is the Minister saying that the London Transport Executive has said to him that, in addition to the posters carried on buses about a range of matters and in addition to its annual report which is made available, it wants the Government


to tell it that it has an obligation to do more?
The Minister in another place said that the various individual organisations had said that they were prepared to have these broad enabling duties laid upon them.
We now come to the nub of the matter and the Government's great difficulty. The Minister in another place said:
one of the purposes of this is to make reasonably straightforward comparisons between one authority and another in the case of local authorities"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 129–32]
Ministers in this House have said that they genuinely believe—and I believe in their genuineness—that ratepayers want to know how much is being spent by neighbouring authorities on a range of matters, so that, when they compare what their council is spending, they have some yardstick by which to judge and criticise their council.
My authority of Enfield has the two neighbouring authorities of Barnet and Haringey, one of which is Conservative-controlled and the other Labour-controlled. Does the Minister believe that the straightforward comparison—as suggested by the Minister in another place—of a number of functions would be helpful? For instance, £149 per head is spent on education in Barnet. Enfield spends £146 and Haringey spends £176. Does the Minister believe that the possession of those statistics by ratepayers in those three authorities, without the additional gloss explaining the various factors present in the three authorities, and a straightforward comparison of statistics will be helpful?
Then there is the comparison between library services. Per head of population, Barnet spends £7, Enfield spends £6, and Haringey spends £11. The figures for social services are Barnet £34, Enfield £30 and Haringey £65.
Does the Minister believe that the simple regurgitation of statistics will be helpful to ratepayers in any of those three places without the provision of a lot of background concerning the age of the population, whether there is an undue proportion of elderly people or children, and whether there is an adverse ethnic mix which will cause the local authority to spend more? There are factors such

as the age of housing, the percentage of industry, the percentage of open space, the number of people who are housebound, and the question of how wide is the net of voluntary help. All of that needs to be understood before one can validate the statement by the Minister in another place that all that we want is a straightforward comparison.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Although my hon. Friend is relating his remarks to this very narrow amendment, is he not launching, a massive indictment of the grant-related expenditures of the new block grant, about which we spoke in Committee and which make the present multiple regression analysis in respect of rate support grant look like childs play?

Mr. Graham: I am prepared to take my hon. Friend's word for that. What we have is the nonsense of the Government claiming the relaxation of controls, setting the people free and giving local government the opportunity to determine its own affairs, but at the same time and in the same Bill, by virtue of the financial stranglehold which they will be imposing in relation to rates and capital allocations, they are laying upon local authorities a duty to provide this additional information, which will make nonsense of that freedom.
Already we are seeing some of the problems. In the Education Act a duty to provide certain information concerning schools and acedemic records was laid on authorities. The Enfield Gazette of last weekend said:
In a report to the sub-committee, Mr. Hutchinson"—
the education officer—
said if the Department of Education model were followed, the council would have to produce a booklet of about 250 pages each year.
This is nonsense. People are interested in education and want more information about social services. They want to hear more in relation to accountability of the range of additional bodies. However, the Government have got completely out of balance. They have a desire to force authorities to make known to the public what they are doing, but at the same time they are making it impossible for local authorities to carry out their remit.
Therefore, before we agree to Lords amendment No. 7, I hope that the Minister


will be able to justify these additional authorities having to carry these extra imposts.

Mr. Dobson: I should like your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or possibly the assistance of the Minister. Am I right in thinking that the Minister moved the whole group of amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. When we have these groupings, the Minister moves the first amendment and speaks to the others. I then put from the Chair the amendments as we come to them in the list of Lords amendments.

Mr. Dobson: I can assume therefore, that except in reply to anything that is said in the debate, the Minister has done all the speaking that he intends to do on the whole group of amendments.

Mr. King: I shall reply.

Mr. Dobson: In view of the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and myself, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who is temporarily absent—I am rather surprised that the Minister chose not to refer—at least not in my hearing, and I have been present throughout the whole proceedings this afternoon—to one solitary syllable of these amazing amendments.
There was not a shred of apology for the way in which these amendments have been presented to hon. Members who are trying to do their job. I do not know whether this is characteristic of the way in which the Bill has gone through Parliament. If it is, I find it a very cavalier treatment of the House and those whom we are trying to represent.
We have an enormous Bill, an enormous number of amendments and amendments to amendments. The Minister is aided by another Minister, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, a cast of thousands at the Department of the Environment and by no fewer than nine persons in the communal coffin behind the Chair. The Minister has his advisers as near to hand as possible. Back Benchers are reduced to trying to find out for themselves the effect of the proposed amendments that were sprung on the

House yesterday. It is difficult for us to do so. I must protest. I repeat my protest about the cavalier treatment that we have had from the Minister.
5.30 pm.
As I attempted to explain when pursuing a point of order, my main concern lies with the Inner London Education Authority, which is referred to by name in no fewer than four places in this series of amendments. I do not understand why these late amendments have to be introduced. Did the Department forget about ILEA until it reached this late stage in the game? I think that it was Lady Bracknell who said that to lose one parent was unfortunate but to lose two was carelessness. It seems that we lost ILEA on no fewer than three occasions. That must amount to gross negligence on the part of the Minister and his advisers.
I have not had the opportunity to consult the GLC member and the ILEA member in the area that I represent. I have not had the opportunity to consult ILEA at officer or member level to ascertain the impact of these amendments. ILEA may have felt that it was caught by the Bill already. Presumably the Minister and his officials took that view before late amendments were tabled. Alternatively, ILEA may have thought that it was not caught. The result of this trivial piece of paper containing the amendments that we are now discussing will be to catch it.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talks about late amendments and seems to suggest that the Government printed them on Monday, did not go through the House of Lords and merely produced them as their amendments. The hon. Gentleman is holding the corrigendum on the Lords amendments that came from another place. A number of the amendments were tabled more than a month ago. There has been discussion in another place over a considerable period. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this is a quick print-off by the Government of a few amendments that no one else has ever seen is inaccurate.

Mr. Dobson: I regard that intervention as even more insulting to the House than what has gone before. I find it difficult enough to do my job in this


House and to read the reports of debates and the papers that come before me. I see it as no part of my duty to go through all the ramblings of the geriatrics at the other end of the building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is definitely an unparliamentary remark. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Dobson: What it boils down to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A withdrawal is appropriate.

Mr. Dobson: I withdraw whatever it was that I said that was out of order. In the time available to me since these papers came before the House, I have found it impossible to assess the impact of the amendments on my constituency. Whether the Opposition Whips like it or not, I propose on all matters in the corrigendum that refer to ILEA to seek to divide the House.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I suffer from the disadvantage that I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.

Mr. Latham: That is an advantage.

Mr. Brown: I hope that I shall have the tolerance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when I raise matters of which I have not given him notice.
In my brief perusal of the documents that I have amassed within the past half hour, I find that we are discussing issues of considerable importance in Scotland, namely, the way in which the code will be produced, local authorities being obliged to give information on manpower and services, and who will draw up the code, the second issue being a bone of contention in Scotland.
The House considers Bills that include Scotland at its peril. Originally clause 2 did not apply to Scotland. The result of the Lords amendments is that the clause will apply to Scotland. In requiring information from local authorities on manpower and services, the Government are introducing a gimmick. The Government, certainly in Scotland, do not have as much statistical information from local authorities as I think they are entitled

to receive. However, the reasons for requiring the codes seem to be outrageous.
We tried long and hard to establish some element of acceptability in making comparisons of costs of repair and maintenance in local authority areas when dealing with housing subsidies. We found it almost impossible to obtain any information from authorities. They were not unwilling to provide it. The difficulty arose because of the variation of practice between local authorities.
How can we make meaningful comparisons between police authorities? I represent an area that is classified by the Strathclyde regional council as an urban area suffering massive deprivation. How do we make a comparison between the cost of providing the police service in such an area and the cost of so doing in a residential area in another part of the country where the police presence is not nearly so demanding and certainly less costly? The Government are placing, for doubtful reasons, further obligations on local authorities that will add to costs at a time when they are trying to reduce local authority expenditure.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether he is likely to use the powers that are being sought. Will he proceed in a relaxed way, seek voluntary compliance and ignore the almost hysterical approach that is being adopted by some Conservatives in Scotland, who seem to think that the attack on bureaucracy is the answer to all our economic problems?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I must add my protest to those that have already been made about the cavalier way in which the Government have treated the House in producing the corrigendum which appeared only yesterday. The fault may not lie with the Government. It may be the fault of the printer. I do not mind whose fault it is. If the Government had wanted to show some sympathy for the House, they could have accepted the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and agreed to deal with these amendments tomorrow. That would have given us a better chance to consider them. It is disgraceful that the Government should have acted in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) talked


about the difficulty of making comparisons between police authorities I agree that it is difficult to do that.
Recently, I was with Hampshire county council. It boasted that it had increased the number of police officers by 65. It said that that was good, because it was in line with Government policy on law and order. When I probed further, I discovered that Hampshire county council had increased the number of police officers by 65, but had reduced overtime to such an extent that it represented a reduction of more than 65 in the number of police officers. As a result, the council was worse off than before. Such figures would not appear on any comparison. Only the number of policemen would appear on the table.
If I had had more time to look at the Bill, I might not have had to ask my next question. I refer to amendment No. 4C. It seeks to leave out
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to
and to insert
The Secretary of State may".
If amended, the Bill will read:
The Secretary of State may issue for the purposes of this section a code of recommended practice".
According to the original provision, the Secretary of State would have had to issue a code of practice that embraced all the authorities covered by part II of the Bill. The same code of practice would apply to the Inner London Education Authority, to district councils, to the GLC and so on.
The Lords amendment seeks to alter the wording to "may". Does that involve any change? Does it mean, for example, that the Secretary of State could issue a code of practice that applied only to the Inner London Education Authority, or only to a county council, and not to the other bodies mentioned? If I had had a chance to look through the Bill more carefully, I would probably know the answer. I hope that the Minister will help.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will the Minister elucidate amendment No. 4D further? It is extraordinary. I was under the impression that under the London Government Act 1963, ILEA gained the powers conferred by the Education Act 1944. I understood

that every subsequent Act had been amended. I thought that ILEA appeared in all those Acts. I cannot understand why a special amendment is needed to take care of ILEA's functions in accordance with the Education Acts 1944 to 1980. I am worried about the purpose of the amendment. Even the wording is odd. It states:
In relation to the Inner London Education Area functions conferred on education authorities by the Education Acts 1944 to 1980 shall be treated for the purposes of this section as conferred on the Inner London Education Authority".
The Inner London Education Authority is the authority in the inner London education area. If we confer functions on the authority, we shall confer them not on the area but on the authority. I do not understand the preamble. I have become suspicious. At first, I looked at the amendment and thought it not unreasonable. However, the more I re-read it, the more I see that there may be some harm in it. I hope that the Minister will explain its purpose. Am I wrong to think that ILEA has always been covered hitherto by the Education Act 1944 and by that Act, as amended, up to and including the Education Act 1980? If not, has not much of its work been ultra vires? It has carried out the functions required by the Education Acts 1944 to 1980. Why does the whole thing have to be wrapped up in meaningless words? If we are conferring additional powers on ILEA why do we not say so in a simple way?

Mr. Straw: Despite the Department of the Environment's great resources and the expertise of its officials, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services and the Secretary of State have made a series of staggering blunders from beginning to end. They began when they introduced a major constitutional Bill in the House of Lords. That resulted in such opposition from Conservative peers as well as from Labour peers that the Bill had to be withdrawn.
Such ill consideration was given to the Bill that it had to be amended repeatedly in Committee, on the floor of the House and in the other place. As a result, we are faced with 94 pages of amendments and four pages of corrections to those amendments. The Minister has presided


over the biggest mess in our legislative process since the war and over one of the largest and most iniquitous Bills ever produced, yet he has had the cheek to come to the House and to suggest that we have no reason for our complaints. We have complained that we have had only 24 hours in which to read the corrections and in which to understand them.
It is characteristic of the conduct of the Minister and of the Secretary of State that blunders and misjudgments have been made and that they have failed to work out in advance the policy that they wished to see incorporated in the Bill. In addition, they have both acted in a manner that shows great contempt for the conventions of the House.
I was always taught that one advantage of an unwritten constitution was that it was flexible. I was also taught that an unwritten constitution could work only if it was held in respect by its legislators. The conduct of the Minister and of the Secretary of State has shown that the conventions of this House, as regards the publication of amendments in good time for hon. Members to consider them and in relation to many other issues, are no match for those who wish to ride roughshod over its interests.
A lesson can be drawn from the saga of this Bill. Many of our conventions, which exist for the benefit of all hon. Members, need to be incorporated into Standing Orders. If that were done, we should not have to rely on the grace and favour of Ministers. I accept that some Conservative Ministers have had the grace to back down, to accept that they had broken our conventions and to give way to the wishes of the House. However, there are others—including the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services who is sitting on the Front Bench—who show no such grace.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Rot.

Mr. Straw: It is not rot. It is absolutely true. If it was not true the Minister would have stood up and acceded to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He would have agreed to further debate tomorrow. It is no good saying that this has nothing to do with the Government. This is the Government's

legislation and it is their job to ensure that it is in order. It is no good suggesting that we should have followed every dot and comma of the debates in the other place. How are we to know the results of those debates until they have been concluded? How are we to know the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments?

Mr. Cant: While my hon. Friend is on that philosophical and constitutional point, will he concede that the Opposition made something of a tactical blunder when they insisted that the Bill should have begun in this Chamber? Does not he agree with those who suggest that if the Tory Lords from the shire counties had tackled the problem of the block grant—An HON. MEMBER: "It is too late now." It may be too late now, but perhaps we should be allowed a little time in which to reflect on our possible errors. Had the Opposition not been persuaded by the Government that the Queen's Speech could not be further delayed and that the rate support grant had to be introduced on 21 November, we might have seen united opposition from the counties, district councils and metropolitan authorities. That would have saved us from the nonsense of allegedly simplified, but really more complicated, financial procedures.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's speculation on the alternative course of history is interesting. However, even if the Tory Lords from the shires had had 12 years and not 12 months to consider the principles raised in the Bill, they still would have come down in favour of this Government, despite all their huffing and puffing. When faced with a Conservative Government, the other place is a toothless bulldog. It is a toady.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that within the past 12 months on two major Bills the other place has demonstrated the reverse? It has gone against the Government on items of major legislation.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Noble Lords have to prove that they are doing something for their money.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Not a lot.

Mr. Straw: That is right. However, they make those gestures and occasionally


they make pinpricks or dents in legislation—in the tanks that this Government are driving through the rights of people in this country. Had their noble Lordships really been determined to oppose the Housing Bill and this Bill they would have followed the advice of the present Secretary of State when in opposition and thrown the Bill out, as they did in respect of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. It is a mark of the ultimate loyalty of the other place to a Conservative Government that, when the chips are down, they will support them whatever they may do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) should need no other evidence than the response of the Association of County Councils to the new policy imposed by the Government. If that association—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is straying wildly, first in his criticisms of the other place, and now in dealing with pay policy. May we get back to the amendment?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend, but how does he believe that noble Members would have reacted had they had only 24 hours to discuss the amendments?

Mr. Straw: I do not wish to speculate. I visit the other place so rarely that I am not in tune with their Lordships' sense of convention. I dare say that they would have objected even more strongly than we have and that Government Ministers, being noble gentlemen, would have conceded the point and allowed a delayed debate the following day.
Returning to the substance of the amendments, I accept that there is information that local authorities may wish to publish, which could be a benefit. For example, I have here schedules of the value of works carried out by the direct labour department of the borough of Blackburn, which show conclusively how much of a saving that department has made for the people of Blackburn in the 12 years from 1967 to 1979. I shall be happy to provide the detailed figures to anyone who is interested. On 25 housing schemes it has saved £937,020 and on 41 other Capital works schemes it has saved £969,194.
Local authorities should be encouraged to supply as much information as possible

to ratepayers. However, we all know that
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies,
and information cooked up by the Secretary of State. His intention is not to provide ratepayers with information that may assist them but to damn those authorities which, with good reason and with the backing of their electorate, have been high spenders and provided adequate social, educational and housing services.
In the code I believe that the Secretary of State would seek to lay enormous emphasis on expenditure per head and little or no emphasis on the service that should be provided to the community in order to meet demand. That is why I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind part II of the Bill and why I believe that it will be of no service to local government or local democracy.
I am also concerned about amendment No. 4C. As the Bill stands, if Parliament agrees to the publication of information, the Secretary of State has a duty to lay down a code of procedure. Even greater uncertainty is now being introduce. The Secretary of State no longer has a duty but merely a discretion. What lies behind that change?
Finally regarding the Inner London Education Authority, although I now represent Blackburn I was once deputy leader of that authority and know a little about its operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is right. The Inner London Education Authority was always included in the Local Government Acts that applied to education authorities. Under the London Government Act it merely took over the powers and duties previously exercised by the education department of the old London county council. I, too, am deeply suspicious of the Government's motivation in including the Inner London Education Authority.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Also, in amendment 4B at subsection (j) police committees are included. The Police Act 1964 is quoted. However, the Metropolitan Police are not included. The Inner London Education Authority has been mentioned, but the Metropolitan Police, who are responsible to no one in local government, are left out.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Had the term used been "police authority", the Metropolitan Police would have been included.
If the omissions are innocent, why were they not spotted earlier? Is it another printing error? Why have these four categories now been included? Until we have a satisfactory explanation, we shall remain highly suspicious of the Government's intentions.

Mr. David Alton: I share some of the suspicions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but I intend to vote with the Government on the clause. The publication of information by local and statutory authorities is a good thing.
I have many reservations about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. The fact that their Lordships have had to draft 265 amendments is an indication that the Bill's passage has caused concern, and not only in another place, but in local government, too. People in local government feel that the Government have treated them arrogantly. The Secretary of State is well aware of the concern of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and of local government associations.
It is ironic that we are considering a clause dealing with the publication of information, when certain information regarding the Bill was received only in the past 24 hours. I do not know whether that was caused by printing errors or blunders. Even if, as the Minister says, it is purely because of printing errors, he should still accept that there is insufficient time for us to consider the information and come to a reasonable conclusion on many of the propositions that we are being asked to discuss.
6 pm
I support the Government on the publication of information, but I am concerned about the pistol that is being held to our heads. We are told that we must pass the Bill because of the pot of gold that is at the end of the rainbow. We all know that we are being subjected to pressure to get the Bill through as quickly as we can, because if we do not approve the Lords' amendments tonight the money that is to be provided for Opposition parties could be jeopardised. Hon. Members

are being told by their Whips that because of the pressure being applied by the Government to get the Bill through we must abide by their wishes. That is indicative of the arrogant way in which the Bill has been handled from start to finish.
If we consider the Government's record towards local government, we must think back to 1973, when the worst disaster that ever befell local government was enacted by the House. Surely it behoves us to have a little more humility in considering a measure that will have equal repercussions for the whole of local government.
In many ways the Bill will bring about the mutilation of local government. We shall no longer have local government at local level, but merely administration. The Secretary of State is arrogant, stubborn and dogmatic—and they are only his good points. Many feel that his absence today—he has not even bothered to turn up to justify a major piece of legislation—is typical of his arrogance.

Mr. Cant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State did not attend a single meeting of the Standing Committee on the Bill throughout the two and a half months that it sat?

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The Secretary of State's absence is another indication of the cavalier way—that expression has been used by other hon. Members—in which the Government have treated the House and the democratic processes by foisting on us legislation that is resented by local government, many noble Lords and many hon. Members.

Mr. Graham: By leave of the House, I should like to refer to amendment No. 8. I shall be inviting my hon. Friends to reject it as an expression of their dissatisfaction with the Government's attitude.
Amendment No. 8 had its genesis in another place. In moving the amendment on Report, Lord Mackay said that it was the Government's response to the manuscript amendment tabled by Lord Ridley, who had said that the purpose of his amendment was to ensure that there should not be too wide an extension of requirements on authorities to publish information at short intervals without


reference back to Parliament. If that was the object of the original amendment, something seems to have gone wrong, because amendment No. 8 is a big extension of the Secretary of State's powers over local authorities in the provision of information.
At the time, it was said that the Government amendment smacked of instant legislation and, on reflection and in consultation with the local authority associations, that view is confirmed. The Government have made a great deal of the collaboration and co-operation that they have received from the local authority associations. I have been assured by the associations that they have co-operated fully with the Government in the production of voluntary codes of practice for the supply of information. We should bear in mind that the AMA and the ADC cover 100 per cent. of local authorities.
We all know that there has been co-operation, because the code of practice dealing with rate demand notes and the supporting information has been published and will be acted upon by local authorities next April. A code of practice for annual reports and financial statements is well under way. But, before we go further, let me assure the House that there is nothing new in all this. What is enshrined in the codes of practice has been carried out by local authorities for many years. The majority of local authorities already supply to their inhabitants a wealth of information about their activities. This is picked up by the local press in part from council minutes and in part from documents and publications available in local libraries and newsletters put through letter boxes.
Why is it necessary to take further control over local authorities in this sphere? The question is of particular relevance when one considers the long title of the Bill, the first line of which states:
An Act to relax controls over local government".
In leaving amendment No. 8 as part of the Bill, can we say in all honesty that we have relaxed controls over local authorities?
In any event, two of the matters dealt with under the amendment, namely, information about employees and on planning aplications, are already well under way. Indeed, on the first item it has

been part of local government and central Government policy for some years to produce information, first on an annual basis and, more recently, on a quarterly basis, without any requirements for compulsory powers over individual authorities. At a time of public expenditure cutbacks—and we have a vivid illustration of them only a week ago with the moratorium on housing capital expenditure—does it make sense to cause local authorities to spend money in producing statistics that may be of little value to anyone except the gatherers of numbers? The Government seem determined to use statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post—more for support than for illumination.
In all my experience of local government, I have never known there to be a shortage of information available for either elected members or the public. I suggest that if any legislation is required it is in a completely different direction—to force people to read the information that is already put out by their local authorities at considerable expense.
Amendment No. 8 is not required and the Secretary of State has sufficient powers under clause 2 to obtain his objectives for basic information to be provided by local authorities about their functions and activities. I shall be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. King: By leave of the House, I shall reply.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) earlier made most strident objections to the amendments and he accused me of cavalier behaviour. I have apologised to the House. An unfortunate error was made but not by the Government. As soon as we discovered that certain amendments were missing from the printed list, the matter was immediately drawn to the printers' attention and the amendments were published.
I know that the hon. Gentleman could say that the Government have the power to change the business of the House. He made a righteous speech in defence of the House and our constitution, and there is a convention that a weekend should be allowed to elapse before Lords amendments are considered, but the hon. Gentleman worked for the previous Labour Government as a


political adviser, and I am checking how many times they put Lords amendments to the House without even 24 hours' notice. If I am wrong, I shall withdraw, but I suspect that that happened.
We produced a corrigendum of mainly technical errors, but the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported put Lords amendments to the House at short notice on a number of occasions. I have apologised to the House. What happened was unfortunate, but it has not made our proceedings unworkable. It is not treating the House in a cavalier manner. If I thought that substantial amendments had been sprung on the House without its knowledge, I should consider that situation. The amendments to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) referred were moved in the House of Lords on 6 October. I think that he withdrew his remarks, but they indicate how little contact he has maintaned with the progress of the Bill.
I pay tribute to members of the Labour Party in another place for the constructive way in which they debated the Bill. It may upset the hon. Gentleman to know that it was a member of his own party who proposed the inclusion of ILEA in the amendment in the other place. Members of the Labour Party in the other place put in a considerable amount of time on the Bill. They were far from geriatric in their approach. The work of the revising Chamber was carried out with great distinction both by my noble Friends and by the noble Lords on the Opposition side.
I hope that I have not misled the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in suggesting that there had been representations from local authorities, water authorities and other bodies seeking that these powers be imposed on them. I am glad to say that considerable numbers have made it clear that they accept that this is a proper exercise of power by the Government but that they prefer and hope that the voluntary approach can be made to work.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). I believe that we reached agreement in Committee. No one was against the publication of more

information. Only those with something to hide could possibly resent that. We are opposed to bureaucracy in the sense of overbearing demands for unnecessarily elaborate information. I trust that all hon. Members would expect this House, the Government, local authorities and other public bodies to be prepared to publish meaningful information.
The phrase "straightforward comparison" was picked up. There has been some bandying about of the question of how one can make a meaningful comparison with anyone, anywhere. I can understand, in the give and take of debate, that hon. Members will make that point. One cannot compare a metropolitan district with a shire county. There are different types of metropolitan districts. There are inner London and outer London boroughs. I do not accept, however, that it is impossible to make any meaningful comparisons of cost information, personnel information, information on procedures and levels of performance between 454 different authorities in the country. It can be an additional aid to management and a tool for councillors in trying to assess fairly the performance of their own authority. I hope that those who favour greater accountability will recognise the merit of what I say.

Mr. Cant: This is an extremely important point. I have intervened already in the debate to explain the difficulty that has arisen with grant-related expenditure. All the statistical evidence that has become available since the Standing Committee met supports the view of those who say that many of these comparisons are less than meaningful. If one looks at primary and secondary schools in terms of grant-related expenditure, one gets an enormous number of variables and 37 different sets of weightings. In the exemplifications undertaken by the Department there is a 10 per cent. variance in expenditure in different areas. I am all for information. I believe, however, that the Minister is trying to pull a little wool over our eyes, and is trying to mislead, unless he can show that there is some magic, statistical technique to make these statistics more meaningful.

Mr. King: I should not wish to debate the grant-related expenditure assessment


now, although I appreciate that the matter may come up later in the proceedings. I say only that this is a tool that is used in industry and in comparisons between firms. It is a well-established practice, which managements find useful in assessing the performance of their own companies. I accept that there are pitfalls. The matter will need handling with care. There are, however, areas in which it can be valuable. I welcome the widening of the debate. The matter has not been previously much discussed.
The publication of comparative information does not answer any questions, but it might start to ask a few that are worth pursuing, to see whether reasons can be found to account for what seem to be surprising divergences. One simple statistic is the cost of running a planning department. The average cost, among what would seem to be similar types of authorities, varies between £2,000 per 1,000 electorate and £8,000 per 1,000 electorate, with the average coming out at £4,000. One authority may be under-provided for, while another is grossly extravagant. One can, nevertheless, start to ask questions and investigate further if one's authority happens to be an £8,000 authority. I should have thought that councillors in that authority would want to ask more questions.
I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities declined the invitation to prepare codes of practice. These have been prepared in England by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities thought that this was a proper role for the Government. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this is now in preparation by the Government. There will be discussions with the convention. It is the intention in England that the codes of practice should be introduced on a voluntary basis. I hope that further discussions will help to resolve any tension that the hon. Member for Provan feels may exist on the matter.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) asked whether there would be different codes of practice for

different types of bodies. The answer is "Yes".

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is not a question whether there is any difference. Has the Minister the power to pick out one of the items in the list relating to the code of practice for one authority and not do it for the others?

Mr. King: There is no great trap involved. The codes of practice are voluntary procedures. It is possible that ILEA is like no other body. I should have thought, however, that all education bodies would tend to fall within the same broad remit for the sort of information that is meaningful about their performance.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. King: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) asked why ILEA had suddenly been mentioned and whether this was a sinister move. I assure him that it is not. The extension of the clause to cover ILEA is necessary because, under existing statutes, the education function in inner London is conferred on the GLC, acting through the special committee known as the ILEA. For ILEA to be able to publish information about discharging functions in accordance with the code of practice issued under clause 2(2), it is necessarily formally to confer those functions on ILEA.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked why the duty had been replaced by the permissive power under amendment No. 4C. The Government's firm intention is to issue codes of practice covering the provisions of information for ratepayers and local electors. However, we have not yet taken a decision on the other types of bodies included in the extension to the clause that was passed in another place. For that reason, we thought it appropriate to make the power permissive, since we shall not seek to introduce a code of practice for some of the bodies.
The hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who spotted the point about the Metropolitan Police. The authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Secretary. It is not appropriate to include the Home Secretary in clause 2(2), although his intention is that the Metropolitan Police shall abide by the;


principles in any code of practice that might be prepared for the guidance of other police authorities.

Mr. Straw: The Minister heard me correctly. The Home Secretary is the authority for the Metropolitan Police area, and in that sense is no different from any other police authority. If the term "police authority" had been used in the amendment, the Metropolitan Police would have been included. Why is it not appropriate to impose a statutory duty on the Home Secretary, in his capacity as police authority?

Mr. King: It is not normal in legislation to take powers for one Minister to lay a duty on another Minister. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised me to say that his intention is that the Metropolitan Police shall abide by the principles in any code of practice that might be prepared for the guidance of police authorities. The Metropolitan Police will not be exempt, but the legal position is different from that of other authorities.
I made an outrageous allegation, which I should not have made if I had not been able to substantiate it. I told the hon. Member for Blackburn that on occasions his Government did not give the House all the notice that might be expected. I speak with the kindest spirit. His Government introduced the Community Land Bill. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was working with the Government on 11 November 1975, but they produced 186 Lord amendments. The House was invited to disagree or amend 29 of them, and the Amendment Paper was available only on the morning of the debate.

Mr. Graham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature and inadequacy of the reply, I invite my hon. Friends to unite in their detestation of the many aspects of clause 2 and to vote on Lords amendment No. 8.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.

New Clause B

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO CODES OF PRACTICE ON PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 8 after clause 2, in page 4, line 31, after the words last inserted insert new clause B—
B—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to whom section 2 above applies to publish any description of information specified in a code issued under that section if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring such authorities to publish any description of information specified in a code issued under section 2 above in the manner and form specified in the code, if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description in that manner and form.
(3) Where the occasions specified in a code for the publication of any description of information recur not more often than once a year the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to publish information of that description on the occasions specified in the code, if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description on those occasions.
(4) Where the occasions specified in a code for the publication of any description of information recur more often than once a year, the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to publish information on the occasions specified in the code if—

(a) the information is of a description to which this sub-section applies; and
(b) in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description on the occasions specified in the code.

(5) The descriptions of information to which subsection (4) above applies are—

(a) information about the discharge of authorities' functions relating to housing or land;
(b) information about the number of their employees or the number of any description of their employees; and
(c) information about the determination of applications for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (4) above shall apply to descriptions of information other than those specified in subsection (5) above.
(7) Any regulations under this section and any order under subsection (6) above may make


different provision in relation to authorities in England, authorities in Scotland and authorities in Wales.
(8) The power to make any such regulations or order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) No order under subsection (6) above shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(11) Before issuing a code under section 2 above or making regulations under this section or an order under subsection (6) above the

Secretary of State shall consult such associations of authorities to whom section 2 above applies as appear to him to be concerned and any such authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.

(12) A code may specify and regulations under subsection (2) above may require that any description of information shall be published to the public in general or to any section of it."

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 135.

Division No. 494]
AYES
[6.27 pm


Alton, David
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Ancram, Michael
Grylis, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'Il)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Beith, A. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Porter, Barry


Bendall, Vivian
Hawksley, Warren
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hayhoe, Barney
Proctor, K. Harvey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Heddle, John
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Barry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Best, Keith
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hill, James
Rifkind, Malcolm


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brinton, Tim
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Howells, Geraint
Rost, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Budgen, Nick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Butcher, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kilfedder, James A.
Silvester, Fred


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
King, Rt Hon Tom
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lang, Ian
Spence, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Stainton, Keith


Cope, John
Lee, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, Sir Albert
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steen, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tebbit, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Dover, Denshore
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Eggar, Tim
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Trippler, David


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Wakeham, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Fell, Anthony
Mellor, David
Waller, Gary


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Watson, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Forman, Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wheeler, John


Fox, Marcus
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Whitney, Raymond


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wickendon, Keith


Freud, Clement
Murphy, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Myles, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Needham, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nelson, Anthony



Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. John MacGregor.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George


Bernett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hardy, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Homewood, William
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roper, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Crowther, J. S.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Stott, Roger


Dempsey, James
Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Douglas, Dick
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eastham, Ken
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Watkins, David


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ewing, Harry
Molyneaux, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Winnick, David


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5

LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO ENTER INTO WORKS CONTRACTS

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 43.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment removes an error that remained after other changes were made to the clause in the House. Subsection 4(a) would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that could remove the requirement that direct labour organisations should be subject to competition before undertaking contract work and substitute conditions of quite a different sort. That is far too wide an Executive discretion, which the Government do not want to take, and which I have no doubt the House does not want to give them. I

invite the House to agree to the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

REGULATION OF FUNCTIONAL WORK

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 23, leave out "other".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Fox: The amendment removes an inappropriate restriction on the conditions that may be imposed on an authority's allocation of work to its direct labour organisation. The simple competitive conditions are fully detailed in subsection (4)—the requirement that


tenders be invited from three other contractors and that the authority publish the results of that competition. It had always been our intention to impose these conditions, but we found on close examination that we had restricted the power to the imposition of other conditions, of an unspecified sort.
I hope that the House will agree that that is wrong. The amendment puts it right.
Lords amendment No. 11 clarifies a difficult piece of drafting in a delicate area of policy. We want to be sure that tender competitions are above board, and we therefore need to ensure that their results are open to scrutiny. At the same time, we do not want to expose the sometimes very sensitive details that lie behind many tender offers. We must respect tenderers' commercial confidentiality, or soon very few people will tender.
The amendment is also a welcome simplification of the drafting. I invite the House to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

New Clause C

EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENT TO KEEP SEPARATE ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 8

Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 8, in page 10, line 33, at end insert:
C.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 8 above does not require a local authority or development body to keep—

(a) in respect of any description of construction or maintenance work specified in subsection (2) of that section; or
(b) in respect of any description of such work specified in regulations under subsection (4) of that section,

accounts for any financial year separate from accounts kept for that year in respect of any other description of construction or maintenance work, if the local authority or development body did not at any one time in the previous financial year employ more than thirty persons, other than persons excluded by subsection (2) below, who were engaged (whether wholly or partly) in carrying out construction or maintenance work of that description.
(2) The persons excluded by this subsection are persons engaged wholly or mainly upon the design, development or control of construction or maintenance work.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of subsection (1) above a number of persons less than thirty.
(4) The power to make an order conferred by subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. Fox: The new clause in Lords amendment No. 19 honours the commitment that we gave in Committee to put down amendments to exempt authorities with the smallest direct labour organisations from the provisions of this part of the Bill. The new clause in Lords amendment No. 12 extends the principle to the accounts as well.
I believe that the idea of a de minimis exemption is generally welcome, but that exemption must be genuinely de minimis. Only the very smallest can be allowed to escape. The figure of 30 operatives is still large by the standards of the construction industry, in which the overwhelming majority of firms employ fewer than 10 men. It will still allow 30 or so councils to avoid the provisions of this part of the Bill, some of them with an annual output of about £ ¼ million each; so the concession is not negligible.
The new clauses are drafted with a view to simplicity of operation. There would be no point in obliging authorities to make elaborate arrangements, simply to determine whether they were in or out of the scope of this part of the Bill. Authorities will, therefore, merely have to ask themselves at the beginning of each financial year whether in the previous financial year they ever had 30 or more DLO manual workers on their books. They will not have to delve into questions of part-time working or overtime working, so the answer should be easily found.
The authorities' professional and technical staff engaged on building work will not be included in their count. They would probably be needed to design and supervise work, whether it was carried


out by direct labour or by private contracting. Nor should fear of losing their de minimis status inhibit authorities in dealing with genuine emergencies, such as flooding, storms and major accidents, as the Secretary of State will be able to direct that any extra hands put to that sort of work are not to count in the reckoning of their labour force for the purpose of the clause.
We believe that the new clauses represent a fair and sensible relaxation. They will save the smallest authorities some work and ensure that safeguards are maintained in all the more significant direct labour organisations. I therefore invite the House to agree to them.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: It is said that one should be grateful for small mercies, it is, indeed, a small mercy that the Government have provided. When the Under-Secretary says "de minimis", he really means it when he is talking about 30 employees. I think he will agree that primarily it is a matter for district councils; it does not apply to county councils or metropolitan districts. How many district councils would have been exempt from the provision if the figure had been not the 30 that the hon. Gentleman magically plucked from the air, but, say, 50?
The Association of District Councils, although it is grateful for this small concession, wanted the figure to be considerably higher than the 30 that the Government have proposed. That is my first quarrel with the Government on the amendment—that they have not gone far enough and they have unnecessarily burdened a number of district councils that have just a few more than 30 employees. They will have to undertake all the paperwork, accounts and so on, and employ staff to do so, because the Government have set such a low number.
The Minister may say "Whatever number we chose, you would have said 'We object to it; it is not big enough'", but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who has known me long enough to believe me, that I should not have taken that attitude. I think that 50 would have been a far more appropriate number. Do the Government know how many more councils

would have been exempted from this burden of work had the figure been 50?
The provisions of the clause will not be as smooth to operate as the Minister has suggested. It will not be simple for a local authority to abide by the clause and to know whether it has erred in straying over 30. I can understand why, under subsection (2) of both clauses, the Government have excluded
persons engaged wholly or mainly upon the design, development or control of construction or maintenance work
and have confined the provision to people
engaged (whether wholly or partly) in carrying out construction or maintenance work".
It will not be easy for local authorities. Where do they draw the line? For example, would the foreman be counted? Is he not supervising, and not actually working? Where does the teaboy come in? He is not building anything but is making tea for the workers.
These are not facetious points. Someone, somewhere, in a local authority must spend time and money—the ratepayers' money—on working out these matters for a particular year. He will have to decide whether a particular workman is included in the category. It can be very important to a member of a small district council that is near the marginal figure of 30. Many district councils will be worried about that, and they have expressed their fears to the association. The provision is unduly complex.
The amendment specifically provides:
The Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of subsection (1) … a number of persons less than thirty.
It would have been prudent of the Government to make that much wider and allow the Secretary of State to increase the figure if he thought it just and proper to do so. Instead by merely giving the Secretary of State the power to reduce the figure below 30, the amendment makes matters even worse.
The difficulty is that local authorities feel uncertain. They have to establish a labour force. They have to establish their direct works departments. If the Secretary of State subsequently reduces the number below 30, they have all sorts of problems over whether they declare certain people redundant in order to escape the provisions of the clause or do the necessary paperwork. Again, there is uncertainty for them.
The last part of Lords amendment No. 19 deals with the "all hands on deck situation", which can arise frequently for local authorities. The difficulty is that under the wording of subsection (6) the Secretary of State determines whether he exempts the authority, it having gone over 30, on the basis that
it was necessary to exceed that number in order to carry out urgent construction or maintenance work whose necessity could not reasonably have been foreseen by the authority or body.
Again, local authorities will find themselves in some difficulty. If there were a breach in a sea wall and a local authority put the whole of its labour force to work to prevent a flood, as it probably would, that would be an occasion on which the Secretary of State would intervene to say that it was necessary, as the breaking of the sea wall was unexpected.
On the old vexed question of snow, snow clearance and inclement weather, would not a prudent authority expect cold weather in winter and realise that there might be frost and snow? If, in an emergency, an authority brought out its whole force to clear its streets, would the Secretary of State say "But you knew, or ought to have known, that it sometimes snows in winter"?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) is in the Chamber. In most authorities it would be highly unusual for there to be earthquakes, but that would not necessarily be so in Stoke-on-Trent, because one hears of earth tremors in that area. Therefore, ought not a prudent engineer in Stoke-on-Trent make provisions for that eventuality? Were there to be an earthquake in Stoke-on-Trent, God forbid, would the Secretary of State say "You ought to have known about that factor"?
These points worry many small district councils. The matter is not as simple as was outlined by the Under-Secretary of State. There are many problems of definition in the wording of the clause inserted by the other place. We do not propose to oppose it, but I wish that the figure were more than 30. I should prefer that it were 50. I wish that the Secretary of State would take the power to "up" as well as to "down" the limit.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I think that Lords amendment No. 12 is a

useful addition to the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, it would make life easier for district councils, and perhaps for some county councils, if the number were extended to 50. On the other hand, if that were done, it could undermine part of the purpose of clause 8 because it would in a sense allow too much freedom.
Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State given any further consideration to the possibility that clause 8 should not be implemented until 1 April 1982? I ask that not because I am against the clause but because, if this provision is implemented forthwith, it will allow very little time for local authorities—particularly county councils—to set up the accounting machinery. This is important because, from a preliminary consideration, it seems likely that, for example, the implementation of clause 8 could give rise to a direct increase in staff of up to 330 in the highways departments of county councils. The county councils do not want to increase staff and the Secretary of State does not want to increase staff. However, it is possible that such an increase, or a lesser increase, can be avoided if the local authorities have reasonable time to consider how to implement this provision without adding to their bureaucracy.
This matter was referred to in another place. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could indicate how far his thinking or that of the Secretary of State has got on this matter.

Mr. Cant: I support the observations made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). As a member of a county council, I fully appreciate the difficulties to which he referred.
The figure of between 300 and 400 extra staff with which local authorities will be burdened to carry out some of these changes relating to direct labour organisations contrasts vividly with the experiences that some members of county councils are facing. A week or so ago a member of the Staffordshire education committee had to sit for six hours—to some extent, this was a self-inflicted ordeal—paring the education budget by £10 million. Every possible economy was insisted upon by the draconian chairman of the education committee who, for some


unknown reason, has a pathological loyalty to the Government. At the same time, to say that any additional work must be taken on by local authorities in consequence of new legislation will produce what often happens in local government—namely, a situation in which financial constraints seem to go along pari passu with extra responsibilities.
I am interested in this matter from the point of view of district councils. Without doubt, all direct labour organisations—or the city works department in Stoke-on-Trent—are going through a terrible ordeal. This is a consequence of the recession that is afflicting the country. Shortage of finance, the ending of agency arrangements with county councils in the next year or so and the housing moratorium are, for the first time, causing redundancies in the Stoke-on-Trent city works department. In this trauma through which the direct labour organisations are passing, it is an excess of bureaucratic zeal to insist that changes in the accountancy procedures and so on must be carried out by 1 April 1981.
The Minister must appreciate that what might have been the timetable for this legislation is certainly not being carried out in practice. Royal Assent will be a good deal later, even at mid-November, than was originally anticipated. Therefore, the Minister will presumably issue his various regulations and directions in January 1981. I find it difficult to believe that even the most efficient direct labour organisation will be able to come to grips with the essential changes when this legislation comes into effect. The Association of District Councils places great emphasis on this point. In the brief that the association has issued to hon. Members it states that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is producing some guidance on revamping costing systems and so forth in the context of the inevitable computer operations.
The association also states:
The Chartered Institute are also producing a code of guidance for use by authorities setting out the appropriate accountancy practice that authorities should follow to implement the legislation.
This, again, is not yet available.
7 pm
I cannot understand why, with so many problems on their hands, this Government,

and Ministers in the Department of the Environment in particular, are demonstrating such indecent haste in trying to rush through all these changes as though change was wholly a virtue and carried no disadvantages.

Mr. Don Dixon: The other point about direct labour organisations is that many of them are tied by central purchasing. By their standing orders, various councils must have central purchasing departments. For councils to alter that, they have to alter their constitutions. That means going through the entire council procedure, and it will be virtually impossible to do this by the date decided by the Government. Many people know why local authorities have to be careful about central purchasing and tendering after the problem some years ago in local government. If direct labour departments are not free to do their own ordering and tendering, they are competing with private contractors with their hands tied behind their backs.

Mr. Cant: My hon. Friend has raised a very important matter, and obviously he has a great deal more practical experience in these matters than I do. However, I should have thought that the Government would have taken my hon. Friend's point into account. Unfortunately, however, they seem to be imbued by some sort of philosophy which leaves aside such practical details. It may be that the CBI, consisting of industrialists and so forth, takes such a poor view of the Cabinet because it has so little industrial experience.
This is just another facet of the problem. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has experience of local government. We do not have the good fortune to have the Secretary of State present in order that we might make inquiries of him, but it is doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman's two colleagues in the Department have that experience. I hope that, as he has so often demonstrated, he will be willing to listen to the arguments of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and other local government bodies about the practical difficulties of implementation.
The Government can pass their legislation, of course, and the local authorities, being law-abiding institutions, will


accept their new role. But, for the sake of a year, it would seem so much more sensible to have this legislation implemented a great deal more efficiently. If, over the period between April 1981 and April 1982, these direct labour organisations—assuming that there are many left as a result of the policies which this Government are pursuing—are given time to set out their stores properly in terms of accounting procedures and so forth, this legislation will be capable of being measured more effectively in the following year.
What would be lost by giving this suggested transitional period in which these changes could be introduced more effectively? Sometimes one is driven almost to the conclusion that this Government feel that they have a much more limited period of time in which to exercise their malevolent influence over the country's affairs than the constitutional period of five years and that they are determined to do their worst within that limited period.
I plead with the Minister. I hope that he will exercise some personal initiative whilst his colleagues are out of the Chamber and say that he has been persuaded by speeches based on practical experience of local Government and that he is prepared to concede that the operative date shall be I April 1982 and not 1981.

Mr. Fox: With the leave of the House, shall reply briefly to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) conceded in his usual fair manner that in Committee we said that we would look carefully at this proposal following representations made to us. After the fullest discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, we came to the conclusion that the biggest concession that we could make was this upper limit of 30 work-people. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we had not gone further, to 50. He put his finger on the problem, because we found that, had we gone to 50, the number of exclusions would have been considerable. Speaking from memory, I think that it would have taken more than 100 authorities out of any accounting. We felt that that would have been far too big a move, bearing in mind that originally there were to be no exemp-

tions. It is not a matter that we did not consider. We felt that in no sense could we go as far as the right hon. Gentleman wanted because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) pointed out, it would have had a major effect on our intentions.
The right hon. Member for Widnes asked about the ease of deciding the definition of the 30 people. I thought that, by my fairly generous description of manual workers, excluding design teams and people of that sort, the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that we were not being rigid about this. He asked about the foreman. Of course, foremen involved in this sort of work would count. Given a figure as low as this, I hope that the tea boy would not spend all his time making tea. If I am wrong, the state of British industry is worse than I thought, and the state of the construction industry is even worse than that in those circumstances. But, again. I expected the right hon Gentleman to welcome the Government's concessions.
As for the idea that the Secretary of State should be allowed to increase the number, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances do we see these de minimis figures being increased. Hence our reason for being emphatic that this is the upper limit and that any movement can only be downwards. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman will not like this because, if anything, he would prefer to have the limit set higher than 50.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that there might be an earthquake in Stoke-on-Trent. I find that a formidable thought. I gather that there have been one or two tremors in that part of the United Kingdom. At one stage. I nearly had my boots on to go there. Strangely enough, whenever there is an emergency, it always seems to be me who is sent to the scene. With that in mind, in no circumstances would I want to face an accident or tragedy of this kind on the basis that the number of people available to assist would be accountable under the DLO accounting or under the de minimis principle.
I reinforce what I said. In the event of serious flooding or a major accident of any kind, the Secretary of State would


ensure that it was excluded from the standards which we have been discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is right about clause 8 and our concern to see that it is not undermined. I have to disappoint him, as I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). In Committee we rehearsed the argument about the date of operation. We emphasised that we hoped that local authorities followed our deliberations in Committee very carefully and that, as a result, they knew that we intended to introduce these reforms on 1 April 1981 and that, despite the pleas made to us, we were determined to hold to that. Nothing that I have heard since has changed my mind that this is possible.
I cannot believe that direct labour organisations—or, in Stoke, the central works department, which I am told is very efficient—will find that it takes long to adapt to the very simple procedures that we intend to introduce. I am not certain that they will be as complicated as CIPFA has suggested, although we shall look carefully at its proposals. I understand that it would make the transition easier if we were to allow the slippage of a year, but we are determined to press on with this new regime as soon as we can, and on that basis I must disappoint hon. Members.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to two Freudian slips which indicate the Government's thinking. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said that he could well understand why the Government did not want the figure of 50. The words that he used—remarkable, coming from him—were that they would allow too much freedom for local authorities. But, according to the Bill's long title, the Government are supposed to be giving freedom to local authorities.
The Minister said that he had had discussions with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is significant that he was the fellow Minister with whom the Under-Secretary held the discussions. It is my feeling that the Government are thinking only in terms of direct works departments which are building departments. Many authorities do not have a building department at all, although they employ more

than 30 people, for example, in the maintenance department in respect of highways. Surely it would have been prudent for the Minister also to have had discussions with his hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said, the debate has revealed the Government's complete lack of understanding of the workings of local government. Those are the sort of authorities among the small district councils which have direct works, although in many cases they are highways departments rather than building departments. Even if 100 or so authorities were set free from these provisions because they employ between 30 and 50 people, it does not represent a massive public works programme, yet that is what is being suggested by the Government.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Perhaps I can clarify the point that I tried to make. I did not mean that I thought that local authorities would have too much freedom. I meant that, in the context of clause 8, it was clear that the Government might think that local authorities would have too much freedom.

Mr. Oakes: I appreciate that correction by the hon. Gentleman. He has a great deal of local Government knowledge, particularly in county councils, and he gives the benefit of that knowledge to the House and to his hon. Friends. I only wish that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench would take notice of what he said.
We do not propose to oppose the amendment because it would be nonsense to oppose a consession. However, I wish that the consession had been a greater one.

Mr. Fox: Perhaps I can make it quite clear that the reason I mentioned my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was that it is his responsibility to look after direct labour organisations. That is within his remit. I assure the House that they were not the only discussions that took place. Throughout the course of this part of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, we consulted closely with our colleagues in the Department of Transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 11, line 35, leave out "each description of".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Fox: We accept that, as long as the requirement for separate calculation of the rate of return remains, little would be lost in the way of clarity or informativeness of the annual financial statements if authorities were allowed to prepare merely a single overall balance sheet covering all their construction or maintenance activities. The single balance sheet would still have to show a true and fair view of the authority's position, and those who wanted to examine matters more closely would be enabled to do so by means of the separate statements of rates of return earned on the assets listed in that balance sheet. The amendment might save authorities a minimal amount of work, and I therefore recommend that the House accepts it.

Amendment No. 14 is consequential to amendment No. 12.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Clause 13

GENERAL FINANCIAL DUTY: TREATMENT OF SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 12, line 41, at end insert "work".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment needs little explanation. It is necessary to put right a printing error and to insert the word "work", so bringing this sentence into line with a similar reference to "construction or maintenance work" throughout part III of the Bill. I invite the House to agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

RATES OF RETURN: POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 14, line 9, leave out "the".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely technical amendment. By removing the word "the" it is made clear that failure to earn the required rate of return in any three consecutive years will mean that a report has to be prepared for the council to consider. This is what everyone has always taken the clause to mean. The amendment will merely make the drafting coincide with that understanding. I ask the House to agreed to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 17, line 5, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 18.

Mr. Fox: These amendments would exempt from part III those labour forces employed by local authority port undertakings. The argument is that these work forces are integral parts of the ports' operational staff, that the undertakings as a whole are already subject to competitive stimulus and to the requirements to act as commercial businesses, and that the requirements of this part of the Bill are thus in substance already met by them. We accept that argument, and I therefore ask the House to agree to these related amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20

RIGHT OF COUNCILLOR TO OPT FOR FINANCIAL LOSS ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 19, line 28, at end insert "notice".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 21.

Mr. King: These are technical drafting amendments, and I ask the House to agree to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

New Clause E

VICE-CHAIRMEN OF COUNCILS IN SCOTLAND AND APPLICATION OF PART IV TO SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 22, in page 22, line 37, at the end insert:
E—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 3 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973:—

"VICE-CHAIRMAN

3A.—(1) A council may appoint a member of the council to be vice-chairman of the council.

(2) The vice-chairman shalt hold office until the expiry of the term of office of the council.

(3) A person holding the office of vice-chairman shall be eligible for re-election as vice-chairman but shall cease to hold that office upon ceasing to be a councillor.

(4) Subject to any standing order made by council, anything authorised or required to be done by, to or before the chairman may be done by, to or before the vice-chairman.

(5) A council may pay the vice-chairman, for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office, such allowance as the council think reasonable."

(2) Section 20 above does not extend to Scotland and this section applies to Scotland only."

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to extend the payment of allowances to vice-chairmen of Scottish authorities. It extends to Scottish local authorities a power that has been available to English

and Welsh local authorities since the reorganisation of local government, and I know that the amendment has wide support, including that of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause F

RATING EXEMPTION FOR FISH FARMS

Lords amendment: No. 23, after clause 25, in page 26, line 27, at the end insert:
F. After section 26 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—

"FISH FARMS.

26A.—(1) Neither of the following—

(a) land;
(b) buildings (other than dwellings),

shall be liable to rates or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate if used solely for or in connection with fish farming.

(2) The gross value for the purposes of section 19(2) of this Act of a house occupied in connection with land or buildings used solely for or in connection with fish farming and used as the dwelling of a person who—

(a) is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing fish farming operations on that land or in those buildings; or
(b) is employed in fish farming operations on that land or in those buildings in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed,

shall, so long as the house is so occupied and used, be estimated by reference to the rent at which the house might reasonably he expected to let from year to year if it could not be occupied and used otherwise than as mentioned in this subsection or in section 26(2) of this Act.

(3) In determining for the purposes of this section whether land or a building used for or in connection with fish farming is solely so used no account shall be taken of any time during which it is used in any other way, if that time does not amount to a substantial part of the time during which the land or building is used for or in connection with fish farming.

(4) In this section—
building" includes a separate part of a building; and
fish farming" means the breeding or rearing of fish or the cultivation of shellfish (including crustaceans and molluscs of any description) for the purpose of producing food for human consumption or for transfer to other waters but does not include the breeding, rearing or cultivation of any fish or shellfish—

(a) which are purely ornamental, or
(b) which are bred, reared or cultivated for exhibition.""

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 24.

Mr. Fox: This new clause, which the Government accepted during progress of the Bill in another place, extends derating to fish farming. Opposition Members may be surprised to know that this is a serious matter. When certain people started to produce fish it was felt that they were for stocking rivers, but this process is now a major source of food. Amendment No. 24 relates to Scotland. We have never rated this process in England. A case was challenged on this point, and the amendment is designed to put it right. I know that Opposition Members were not laughing from any amusement in relation to fish farming.
The new clause generally follows the corresponding provision for agricultural derating in the General Rate Act 1967. This is right, because in almost all other respects fish farming is treated in the same way as other agricultural pursuits. The farming of fish, either for human consumption or for sporting purposes, will be exempted from rating, but the rearing of ornamental fish will not. Nor will the exemption extend to research establishments or further down the chain to food manufacturing.
Amendment No. 24 relates purely to Scotland and will bring Scotland into line with what we are proposing. As I said, certain people in Scotland are already paying rates.

Mr. Oakes: What is the present position in England and Scotland with regard to fish farms? Presumably they are now rated. What is now happening is that another category of derating is taking place. We have had agricultural aerating for some time, and many hon. Members worry about its effect. Is this the thin end of the wedge, and will another industry, which could become a large industry, escape rates?

Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister consider that under these circumstances it would be better to start rating all farming property, rather than have this additional element of derating for fish farmers? I know that the Minister and his

colleagues are dedicated to cutting down the number of local government staff, but how many does he suppose will have to be deployed in verifying that no ornamental fish are being bred, because, as I understand, they will be distinguished from those that are bred for sporting or food purposes. The Minister may have failed to consider the staffing implications of this measure.

Mr. Cant: Not having react with my customary diligence through all the amendments, the announcement just made by the Minister has shocked me. The Government stated—I think during the recess—that they had reluctantly reached the conclusion that they could not abolish the property tax called rates. Irrespective of what they had said previously, it was such a large source of income and, as they were also dedicated to lowering income tax, they would have to retain it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, if we are retaining rates as part of the tax system, why erode the tax base even further? It is essential—whatever we may feel about the Lords, shire counties, and so on—that we should appreciate that the farmers of the country are a highly privileged group of operators. They do not pay rates. But then to say that the fish farmers should not pay rates is ludicrous. As my right hon. Friend also said, this is one of the growth industries of the future. We talk a lot about micro-electronic processors, silicon chips and so on, but the real scientific revolution that will take place is in the area of biotechnology. That is the industry of the future. Fish farming may be part of that revolution one day. We may be feeding ourselves on a greater scale from protein from that source—not from the sea, but from our fish tanks—than vie ever believed would be possible.
But the Minister, with his usual charm and courtesy, says that because of pressure from the Lords, who now see a method of revitalising the countryside through fish farming, he is prepared to concede that fish farmers need not pay rates. I hope that he will reconsider that decision, and, for once, have enough courage to change his mind. I do not feel that this amendment is acceptable.

Mr. Fox: This is not the occasion on which to debate whether fish is food. I


find it difficult to argue that the provision of fish should not be treated in the same way as any other food. It was said that at present agriculture is derated to a certain extent, but that is a different issue. All other types of food production are derated, and yet there is a divergence of opinion as to whether we should extend that derating to fish farming. In the other place there was considerable discussion on the matter. I point out to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that no fish farms have yet been rated effectively in England, although a number have been rated in Scotland. This decision results from the decision of a court of appeal, where it was made clear that rating should take place. The argument that carried conviction in the other place was that fish farming was a new industry, seeking to increase production in line with others. On those grounds I am happy to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Cant: This is an important point. The Minister is not saying that this is a struggling industry with a future and that we should try to encourage it. In effect, he is saying that in the standard industrial classification fish are regarded as a food, and therefore the operation should not be rated. After the war the brewers in Burton on Trent were able to build massive new factories, plants, operations and so on, and when people asked why that building should take place in order to produce beer, when people could not get houses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making his intervention into a speech. I hope that he will reach a conclusion.

Mr. Cant: They were able to do that because technically beer is regarded as a food. I would not contest that for one moment. But the Minister should be wary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Clause 26

DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF

Lords Amendment: No. 25 in page 26, line 34, leave out "dwelling-house" and insert "domestic"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. Fox: The purpose of these amendments is to extend the provisions of clause 26, which amends section 48 of the General Rate Act 1967 to include certain garages and private storage premises that are free standing and form a separate hereditament. These amendments provide that domestic relief be applied at full rate to such premises. Under existing legislation domestic relief does not extend to garages or storage premises unless they form part of a hereditament which is a dwelling-house or mixed hereditament. The absense of relief for free standing garages and private storage premises gives rise to anomalies, and it is a significant source of complaint by domestic ratepayers. It is particularly unfair to flat dwellers as a class of householders.
The matter was brought to the Government's attention when the Bill was discussed in Committee. On that occasion I promised that the Government would consider the matter. These amendments were introduced as a result of that consideration.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does this amendment in any way assist people who rent a garage away from their own home, and who are charged rates on that garage? Water rates are also levied, even though there is no water, and no sewerage facilities. Will this amendment mean that the Thames water authority, in the case of my constituency, will not be able to rate that empty garage that has no water supplies?

Mr. Fox: This amendment helps with regard to rates, but not with regard to water.

Mr. Oakes: What the Minister has said left a query in my mind. I regret


the fact that the good Anglo-Saxon word "dwelling-house" has been replaced in the clause by "domestic hereditament". I could have understood the Minister allowing domestic relief on a garage that was within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, or on a garage that was separated, as in the case of a flat dweller, from the actual dwelling-house, but it seems to me—I hope that I am wrong—that, under the clause as it stands, it will be open to someone who owns free-standing garages which he lets to other tenants to claim domestic relief. I can see nothing to stop him from doing that, so I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that point before we all leave the Chamber and return to our domestic hereditaments.

Mr. Fox: I do not think that the relief that we envisage should produce such a spirit of capitalism in the right hon. Gentleman. I was thinking that he might rush out and buy a few garages as an investment. I shall look carefully at what he has said. If that sort of abuse could develop it would be a matter of concern to us, but as I understand the position, it would not apply in the case that he has instanced.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Clause 27

RATING OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 28, line 4, at end insert—
(7) The power to prescribe sums conferred by this section includes power to prescribe larger sums in relation to hereditaments in Greater London than in relation to hereditaments elsewhere.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of clause 27 is to extend to the occupiers of certain non-domestic property the right to elect to pay rates by instalments—a right that is currently enjoyed only by the occupiers of dwelling-houses. The right will be limited to property with a rateable value between the

minimum and maximum limits specified by order.
The amendment makes the necessary provision for any order to be able to prescribe higher limits for property in Greater London than elsewhere. This is desirable because evidence shows the average non-domestic rateable value in Greater London in 1979 to be more than double that outside approximately £1,757 compared with £827. I therefore submit that the amendment is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 33, leave out lines 6 to 21 and insert—
(2A) The owner of a relevant hereditament shall not be exempt from being rated under this Schedule in respect of that hereditament on the ground that the provisions of section 32. 33 or 34 of this Act would exempt the hereditament from being liable to be rated or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate, unless it appears that the relevant provisions will so exempt it when it is next occupied.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In the Bill as previously drafted, subparagraphs (ii)(a) and (ii)(b) of clause 27(4) were intended to close a small loophole in the present statutory provisions on empty property rating whereby unoccupied electricity and gas showrooms are able to avoid paying empty property rates. The loophole came to light in a court case concerning Tower Hamlets London borough council, and it was thought that the clause would close it.
The amendment now goes further, in that it covers all empty electricity and gas board premises—showrooms, offices and dwellings—which, when occupied, are subject to normal rating provisions. It also applies to the premises of British Rail, London Transport and British Waterways. It removes any doubt that, when unoccupied, such premises should be liable to empty property rating in the same way as premises owned by any other person or organisation. This is a minor amendment but one that clarifies the purpose behind the original legislation, and I ask the House to agree with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35

RATING OF UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 34, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) such notice as is mentioned in subparagraph (2) below is given by the charity or, as the case may be, the trustees

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34.

Mr. Fox: These are technical amendments, and are necessary to correct flaws in the drafting of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 40

COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 37, line 18, leave out "and 30" and insert "30 and 37".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41.

Mr. Fox: These amendments, which either stem from the drafting of the Bill or are consequential upon other provisions that have been introduced, deal with the commencement provisions for part V and certain of the amendments and repeals in schedule 29 and part VII of schedule 30. They are all of a technical nature.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 41

GENERAL POWER TO REDUCE RATE SUPPORT GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 38, line 11, leave out "any year" and insert
the year 1980–81 and any subsequent year before the commencing year".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 43.

Mr. King: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the terminology on the introduction of the transitional arrangements. The transitional arrangements are, of course, terminated by clause 46(3) when the new grant proposals are introduced.
Amendment No. 43 is technical and makes it clear that the term "notional uniform rate" has the value assigned to it for the year 1980–81 in the report on the Rate Support Grant Order 1979.
I ask the House to agree to it.

Mr. John Tilley: It is worth while for the House to spend a little time in considering these two amendments. They are the first amendments that bring us into the area of the rate support grant, which is in many ways the guts of the legislation. The first amendment shifts, although only slightly, the balance between the degree to which the Bill destroys local democracy and the way in which the Government, in bringing forward the Bill and implementing it before all its stages were completed, have to some degree detracted from parliamentary democracy.
This is also the first time that the House has had the opportunity to consider the transitional arrangements since they have been put into operation. When the House and, indeed, the Committee were considering these classes on the transitional arrangements of trying to penalise authorities which did not meet the Government expenditure guidelines in this year, we were only looking forward to what might be happening. We can now say that our worst fears have been realised. Although the clauses to which the first amendment refers are only a part of the general derogation from local democracy, in that they are Government attempts to control the way in which local authorities spend their finances, it is clear, from the way that the Government have operated, that it has been a very serious insult to the House. I believe that these clauses were put into operation before the amendment or other amendments could be considered.
With regard to the question of lack of local democracy, it is very sad that the Conservative-controlled authorities—largely the ACC and the GLC—have agreed to go along with these provisions in general. I do not know what price they got for it; it would be wrong of me to speculate. All I know is that it is the last chance that they have to exact a price for acquiescence with Government on this issue, because from now on, when the Act goes on to the statute book, they will have very few powers of local determination.
But the specific aspect that is contained in the clause and is affected by the amendment is that of parliamentary democracy. I do not think that Ministers can disagree with the fact that they have used these powers and that they have specified the councils against which they will use them more than a month before tonight, when this House is considering the detail of the legislation. The Bill could still go back to the Lords and come back to the House before the end of the sitting on Thursday.
Whether or not the Government will accept that the legislation is retrospective, in that it applies to decisions taken by local authorities several months ago, there is no doubt that they were anticipating the legislation in their pronouncements of a few weeks ago on what became known as their hit list of the councils that they had decided to penalise.
In discussing the matter, perhaps the first point is that no councils have really been penalised, and no councillors have lost anything out of this. In no sense has any individual member of a local authority been surcharged or penalised. What has happened is that it is people living in those local authority areas such as my constituency of Lambeth who will suffer because the Government intend to deny the resources necessary for the services those people need.
The amendment is relevant because it deals with the period during which this transitional power might remain with the Government. The House should look at how the Government went through the operation of implementing this clause. Time and again in Committee hon. Members said that this gave arbitrary powers to the Secretary of State, and that he was making, if not subjective judgments about

what levels of spending should be in a particular council, certainly judgments for which he was not accountable to any authority, be it this House or a court of law.
The hit list of councils was originally 14. It included the London borough of Hammersmith. Because that borough is under a Tory-Liberal alliance control, it was possible for the Government to say that they were not attacking merely Labour-controlled councils. Following that decision, however, Hammersmith and some of the other boroughs involved have been able to get off the list and avoid the penalties by making representations to the Minister. From the accounts that I have seen in the press and the information that I have been able to gather otherwise, in some cases they have been reprieved, not because they have said that they would mend their ways because of the threat of this penalty but because they have been able to show to the Minister that the information on which the Minister took his decisions and the projections of spending of that local authority were incorrect.

Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the first instance of what Opposition Members said would happen? We said that, dependent upon the Minister's whim and the kind of yardsticks, measuring rods and criteria he wishes to apply, in effect, whether it is sinister, malicious or merely argumentative, under these transitional arrangements and other parts of the Bill it is now possible for any Minister to determine the kind of punishments, hit lists and penalties that he wishes to dish out, according, at his own suggestion, to whatever line of policy he wishes to pursue from year to year.

Mr. Tilley: I could not have put it better. I thank my hon. Friend for amplifying the point. He served on the Committee; I did not. I am glad that his predictions—although it is unfortunate for the councils involved—have proved to be only too true.
Now that we have a Star Chamber approach in Marsham Street, either the criteria on which the initial decisions were taken for the 14 on the hit list were wrong, or the information on which those decisions were based was wrong. But this House cannot judge either question


because we have not been told by any Minister—let us hope that we shall be told tonight—what the criteria were or what the information was.
Therefore, it seems that this clause, whether or not amended in the way suggested, gives Ministers the absolute power to decide quite arbitrarily whether to put the heads of local authorities on the block—perhaps that is the origin of the phrase "block grant" in the Bill—and then simply wait to see whether they get executed or are reprieved at the last moment.
I want to talk briefly of the sort of effect that we are experiencing in Lambeth, which is one of the local authorities affected. We are talking of a total package of cuts of £2·1 million because Lambeth was on the hit list of 14 boroughs, £1·4 million because of the Secretary of State's equally arbitrary cut in the overall level of rate support grant in the increase order this year, and—I shall return to this matter—a £7·5 million cut in the inner city partnership money for the Lambeth area over the next few years.
7.45 pm
That is a massive scale of cuts imposed in this quite arbitrary way by the Government. It seems to many of us to coincide with ensuring that the Secretary of State got his traditional cheers at the Tory Party conference. I am afraid that the result is not that any councillors have been penalised in any direct way or that any chief executives have been humbled, surcharged or anything else. It is that services for the old, which are desperately needed in Lambeth—such as home helps and meals on wheels—cannot now be funded at present levels, which are widely recognised as inadequate; that services for children, and day nurseries for the under-fives cannot be maintained as they are now even though there is a need for much more; and that there is now no chance of providing the desperately needed services for the sick and the disabled in an area of inner city deprivation.
That is the situation that results from this clause and from Ministers acting before this House gives them the authority to do so. It is a serious constitutional point as well as a serious point in terms of my constituents' problems.
My last general point on this subject is the issue of the inner city partnership

which has been affected in Lambeth. This has exposed the Government's hypocrisy. When they came into office, they paid lip service to the need to maintain a bipartisan approach to tackling the problems of the inner city. I am quite happy to pay tribute to the fact that these problems were first pinpointed by the former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). There had been a bipartisan approach. It was recognised that areas of special need require special help, yet the paradoxical situation is that the present Government, using this clause, are attacking those areas of special need, not only in terms of taking away the extra inner city partnership funds which had been allocated but also of cutting into their main RSG allocation.
That is the lesson that must be drawn from the Government's action and their anticipation of this legislation. If that is how the clause is to be used before it reaches the statute book, surely that is a very strong argument for the House to reject not only the Lords amendment but the clause and the Bill as a whole.
A final example of the arbitrary nature of the cuts is the Brixton recreation centre, on which £7 million has been spent. The centre requires another £2 million to be spent to make it at least weatherproof. It is an area of great recreational deprivation as well as all the other forms of deprivation, yet the Government have chopped the money that would have finished that centre.

Mr. King: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Tilley: The centre will merely stand empty, as £7 million worth of public investment has been lost because the Government, for some trivial reason, to make a political point, have refused to provide the remainder of the money needed for it.
Tonight the economic activities committee of Lambeth borough council is meeting to hear that the employment projects at Dive Road, Hamilton Road and Coronation Buildings, projects that would have provided factory space for new firms coming into the borough, have had to be scrapped, because there is no longer public money available for them, even though the Government were saying earlier this year that the money would be available.
I have taken a lot of the time of the House on this Lords amendment, but those are just a few of the examples of how the Government, anticipating the use of this legislation before its approval by the House, have misused their powers and have proved that all the dire predictions of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee were only too true.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the protestations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) on behalf of my authority, which is also on the Secretary of State's "hit" list. It is on the hit list for one reason only—namely, the confrontation between the deputy leader of the council and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). Government and local government are suffering because the Minister apparently finds it impossible to be civil to the deputy leader of the council and the deputy leader finds it impossible to deal with the uncivil Minister. As a result, people in Hackney are suffering badly. It is a scandalous state of affairs. A new word has been coined in Hackney. When someone wants to vacillate, to lie or to cheat, it is said "Do not do a Finsberg".
I pay tribute to Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who was kind enough to see me and to engage in long discussions. I found him understanding. He wanted to be helpful. I thought that he was understanding of the problems in every way. I described to him the difficulties in Hackney. Hackney is at the top of the list for all criteria of deprivation. However, the Secretary of State decides to take action against Hackney because, for the base year that he has chosen—he did so without consultation—Hackney borough council overspent on a notional sum. I have explained to the Minister and to Lord Bellwin why it was wrong to select the base year chosen by the Minister. There was not over-expenditure. Certain expenditure was taking place because the council was overcoming the industrial disputes that had taken place earlier which resulted in under-spending in 1978/79 the base year chosen.
The Secretary of State argued that he had selected an average year and that there was evidence that the council had been deliberately profligate and had been spending money willy-nilly. That argument does not stand up to examination. It is not true. I put my argument to Lord Bellwin and he could not fault it. However, the Government have gone ahead.
The Government say that local authority representatives in Hackney must go to them cap in hand and plead for special facilities. I have told them that the people of Hackney will never do that. They are too proud to do so. They will not go cap in hand to any Government of any persuasion. In the first place, they do not believe that they are wrong. I ask the Minister to check on the year that has been chosen. If he does so, he will find that it is an unusual year. It was unfair to select that year because of the circumstances of that year. They were specific to Hackney. If he checks on previous years and subsequent years, he will find that the allegation of overspending is not true.
Hackney has done as much as it can to ensure that it makes the best use possible of the money that is spent. Nobody has charged Hackney until now with not doing its work properly. On the contrary, there have been many letters from Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments, congratulating those in Hackney for the remarkable job that has been done and how they are pleased with it. Many Ministers have visited Hackney to observe the way in which the work has been done. There has been a partnership scheme and both the Ministers concerned have paid tribute to the authority for the work that it has done. They have agreed that it would be impossible to charge Hackney with profligacy.
Both the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues have commended Hackney and have set out their commendations in writing. It cannot be argued that Hackney has been a bad authority. Indeed, I do not believe that it is for the Government to argue that case. It is for the people of Hackney to decide whether the borough council is being run properly and efficiently and in the way


that they expect. In any event, the Government cannot indicate that Hackney has been profligate.
Tomorrow Prince Philip will open one of the complexes that has been built as a result of the partnership scheme. The area in which the complex has been built was derelict for many years. In 1971 the House transferred the open spaces from the control of the GLC to that of the boroughs. The GLC had not done its job. I said on that occasion that I thought it would be years before the open spaces would be properly developed. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Crosby, (Mr. Page) sent me a four-page letter after the debate assuring me that I was wrong. He told me that he had received assurances that the development would take place quickly. Ten years have passed. The derelict land has been developed only because it was agreed during the term of the previous Labour Government that Hackney should become a partnership area.
The development that has taken place cannot be finished because of the many millions of pounds that the Government have taken away from Hackney. Further facilities cannot be provided. If there were any truth in the allegation that Hackney had been profligate, I should not support the council. If the allegations were true, I should inform the House. I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision that has been made. I will see him at any time to explain once again the council's case. Lord Bellwin wrote to me only three days ago to inform me of the results of my interview with him. It seems that he clings to a sentence that has been coined in the Department to the effect that the Government agree that partnership is partnership and that it means partnership between the Government and the local authority. It is argued that there can be no partnership unless the local authority is of the same political persuasion as that of the Government of the day.
That is a dangerous precept to argue. It is one that will destroy local government. Is there to be a fight every time there is a change of Government? On the regional health authority on which I serve three Labour members have been sacked for no reason. They were perfectly good

guys who did a perfectly good job. I have always fought against that type of political intervention. It will be sad for local government if we are to witness further examples of this type of behaviour in future.
I urge the Minister to review the decision on Hackney. The borough council has acted in conformity with all the standards that are laid down for good local government. It is doing its best in the most desperate circumstances. It is not wasting money. Ministers have approved the expenditures that have taken place. The base year that has been selected cannot be argued to be a year in which normal expenditure took place. I invite the Minister to meet me tomorrow or at any time so that I can once again place before him the facts about Hackney. If he checks the facts that I have presented he will realise that they are true. If he does so, the people of Hackney will not be subjected to further harassment and additional expenditure will not fall unfairly and unreasonably on their backs.

Mr. King: The hon. Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) have taken the opportunity on a narrow amendment to debate the wider issues of transition. I make no objection. It is their privilege to do so.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central seems to be under the impression that he can vote against the clause. The clause has been approved by the House and the only matter for discussion is the narrow and technical amendment that is before us, with which the House will either agree or disagree. The hon. Member made another gallant attempt to try to get a bird to fly. His right hon. and hon. Friends have often tried to get the bird to fly, but it has remained resolutely and firmly on the ground.
It is rubbish to suggest that we have put something into operation that has not been sanctioned by Parliament, or that there is some arbitrary power in the hands of Ministers that is outside Parliament's control. Nothing will happen under the transitional arrangements unless the Bill becomes an Act. Only when an order has been laid before this House and has been approved separately by this House under the rate support grant arrangements will anything happen. The


House always debates the increase order and has an opportunity to vote, if it so wishes.
8 pm
When he has reflected, I hope that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central will not seek to sustain his suggestion that some arbitrary power is involved that is outside Parliament's remit. The hon. Gentleman might say that it is outrageous to give advance information on how the powers are likely to work. His right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will tell him that he has spent most of the past six months asking me to give him the earliest possible indication of the way in which the powers are likely to be used. The complaint might be that we should have made this announcement earlier. We were anxious to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's request, and that is why we announced at the earliest possible moment how the arrangements would operate.
May I tell the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that the first criteria have nothing to do with base years. The first criteria were laid down last December, nearly a year ago. We gave local authorities advance warning about the way in which we envisaged that the transitional arrangements would operate. It involved the rate level in individual boroughs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in theory, the rating system was geared to providing an equivalent level of service for an equivalent rate poundage. We based that round the notional uniform rate. That was the advance warning that was given to Hackney, Lambeth and to other authorities.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not wish to correct every error. Let us take an example. The right hon. Gentleman said that he gave notice in December that councils were likely to be penalised if they exceeded the notional uniform rate. Since the notional uniform rate that he stipulated excluded virtually 50 per cent. of the councils, does he not agree with every local authority association that that did not constitute a warning? There was a wide criterion within which the Secretary of State made a narrow, arbitrary, biased and politically orientated judgment.

Mr. King: I am interested to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman will

recall that the rate set was substantially in excess of the notional uniform rate. We envisaged that not fewer than 10 and not more than 20 local authorities would be affected. It was possible for certain outside pundits to make an early prediction about who would be affected by such criteria. The idea that the Secretary of State made a narrow judgment at the last minute is nonsense. It was the logical result of the scheme that we had outlined. It will not come into effect unless the House approves it.
We have published a provisional list. It is only provisional because until those orders are passed it will not come into effect. There is no question of inviting authorities to come on bended knee to us. Some authorities said that they made errors in the figures that had been submitted. There was some suggestion that we should not be anxious about receiving the correct figures. If we were to make a decision that was based on the wrong figures, it would be intolerable. If authorities have made errors, they should let us know. We are ready to take account of that.
If authorities wish to do so, they can consider their position and their budget and decide whether to make economies. They can still decide whether it remains possible for them to qualify. Nothing would give my right hon. Friend or I greater pleasure than that nobody should be on the transitional list. I shall consider the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I shall discuss them with my noble Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will consider them carefully.
It has been suggested that the authorities do not know what the criteria are on which they have been judged. That was made clear last month, when we announced the initial provisional list. The criteria were stated clearly. As the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central raised this question, he will have to take my reply as it comes. The account that he gave of the Brixton recreation centre was a travesty of the truth. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. I trust that that account was based on ignorance and not on any attempt to distort the truth about Brixton recreation centre.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that centre was a project of Lambeth


council. It has nothing to do with the urban programme or with Government funds. It was budgeted to cost £3·4 million. I may be wrong about that figure, but when it was launched it was within the £3 million bracket. So far, it has cost over £7·5 million. Contrary to the sum that the hon. Gentleman mentioned of £2 million, the latest information is that it will cost in excess of a further £7 million to complete it. I do not place all the blame on Lambeth council, because there were inter-union disputes on the site which led to problems. The disputes caused considerable delay and cost inflation. The project has nothing to do with the urban programme.
As a result of Lambeth council's financial difficulties, it approached the urban programme and the partnership. Certain other authorities in the partnership and, not least, the voluntary bodies in Lambeth realised that possible sources of revenue from the urban partnership would be swallowed up by a Quatermass that was growing and that could swallow all the funds. Contrary to their views, we agreed to make some contribution from the urban programme in order to help Lambeth.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman respects the truth because he is an hon. Member. If he does, he will ensure that that correction is understood in the borough. He will not allow the canard to spread. He will not allow it to be said that this is a Government project that we have stopped, and that the Government are responsible for that. He knows that what I have said is true.

Mr. Tilley: The Minister has started a canard of his own, which will not fly. He cannot have it both ways. In this year's inner city partnership programme there is £800,000 of Government money, which will enable Lambeth to continue the project. As a result of the decision that the right hon. Gentleman took last month about penalties, £800,000 has been taken out. As a result 140 building workers are out of work and £7 million of public investment will be wasted. The building will be left open to the wind and rain for the foreseeable future. His arbitrary and recent decision has led to that. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated slightly when he said that it will cost another £7 million.

Mr. King: I am worried by the hon. Gentleman's last comment. I suggest that he keeps in closer touch with his borough. I think that I understated the figure. He should check up. The council got into trouble and came to the Government to ask them to contribute a further sum to help with this year's bills. Now that the Government have decided against that, we have been accused of sabotaging the project. No other hon. Member who has listened to the story would consider that, against that background, the Government have to take full responsibility for what has happened.
I draw the hon Gentleman's attention to the recent remarks of the director of housing in Camden, who, he may have noticed, has tendered his resignation. I believe that the observation may be applicable to other London boroughs. If we are to protect services, it is necessary for economies to be made at a time of straitened circumstances. Boroughs that have set their hearts and minds against any economies anywhere are the biggest threat to services in their boroughs—far greater than may sometimes be indicated by their public statements.
I agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch about partnership. It would be a sad day if there had to be the same political persuasion at each tier of government for there to be successful partnership. I am proud to say that that is not the case in the majority of our partnerships, which are proceeding satisfactorily. Unfortunately, in one or two cases it is not so. I say this out of the top of my head, but I believe that all the other partnerships are with Labour authorities and the Conservative Government, and are proceeding with co-operation and good sense on both sides. That demonstrates that there is no political vindictiveness on our part in partnerships. I endorse the comment that, at a time when there need to be economies right across local government, partnership means partnership. If certain authorities are not prepared to take one step in the direction of economy throughout local government, it is difficult for the Government to undertake yet further to subsidise what by any standards could be considered further substantial expenditure.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to follow the two examples of the Secretary of State's behaviour that my hon. Friends gave. However, I very much sympathise with the authorities in their dilemma and applaud the defence of their position by their Members of Parliament.
Lest there should be some who read only one page of Hansard, I rise to say one thing now. I hope to have an opportunity in an hour or so to discuss and describe the way in which the Secretary of State has operated the transitional provisions. I have tabled an amendment to limit his discretion in another area, in an attempt to demonstrate that he is not fit to be given the discretion that the Bill constantly provides.
The Minister's speech should not pass without my saying that his description of the Secretary of State's behaviour in applying the transitional arrangements is not understood or recognised by me; nor will it be acknowledged or recognised by any local authority association. His description was of how the Secretary of State might have behaved had he been a reasonable man. It was not, in fact, how he behaved.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry]

Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Clause 44

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS FOR TRANSPORT PURPOSES

Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 40, line 5, after "exercised" insert "separately and".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47.

Mr. King: By the amendments, the rate support grant arrangements will be operated separately for England and Wales. These technical amendments clarify the ways in which the arrangements separated. The transport supplementary grant can be similarly operated in England and Wales by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales, respectively.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Under the change inplemented this year, questions which would have gone to the Department of the Environment concerning the rate support grant settlement will next year be transferred to the Welsh Office. Will the diverse problems that might arise in Wales over local authority spending, and problems similar to those that were dealt with a moment ago concerning certain London boroughs, be resolved and any action taken by the Secretary of State for Wales? Will the whole package be handled by him, without any split in function?

Mr. King: Subject to the amendments being accepted, for the coming year, 1981–82, that will be so. The 1980–81 arrangements remain within the existing practice.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he had a bit of bad luck and found that he had slipped down the queue when he got back into the right place.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Clause 48

THE DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 44, line 43, leave out "determined" and insert "calculated".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 59, 64 and 174.

Mr. King: The amendment is essentially a change in terminology. If the word "determined" was left in, the domestic rate relief grant payable to every local authority would have to be specified in the initial rate support grant order, which is impossible. It has to be calculated subsequently.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

Clause 49

THE BLOCK GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 46, line 1, leave out "The" and insert and insert
Subject to subsection (6A) below, the

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55.

Mr. King: This is a paving amendment for an amendment which prevents the amount of grant payable to an authority exceeding its total expenditure. It may appear to be an additional complication, but an authority may choose not to receive a grant, and another tier of authority may receive the grant on its behalf.
Amendment No. 55 is what used to be called the "Squire" amendment. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is not here.

Mr. Graham: An absent squire.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend tabled an amendment on Report, with which expressed sympathy but which was not technically correct. Under the block grant schedule, the amendment will avoid the problem of a positive incentive to decrease expenditure below the grant-related level. Alternatively, it will prevent a further incentive to increase expenditure above that level. A number of representations have been made by local authorities. The Government were pleased to accept the amendment, tabled on behalf of an association, in their Lordships' House.

Mr. Cant: Will the Minister give us a political interpretation of the amendment? It is believed by many—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will disabuse me and others—that the amendment is one of the concessions that the Government made in another place to persuade their Lordships not to oppose the block grant and capital expenditure controls.
Am I right in believing that the amendment will make it difficult for any future

Government to bring financial pressure to bear on authorities to make them increase their expenditure if they are underspenders? The Squire amendment permits Tory authorities to continue in their rather backward ways of not spending enough on local government services, without any coercion being able to be brought to bear in order to make them do so.

Mr. King: This could not have been a concession made in another place, because I announced on Report that we accepted the principle of the amendment. It needed redrafting on technical grounds, and it was retabled in another place.
The concept that the hon. Gentleman has defined is broadly correct. There is a neutral stance below grant-related expenditure. As at present, the line will be constant. I do not want to get into the technicalities of the matter, but the line is constant, regardless of the level of expenditure.
The difference will be that, in future, above grant-related expenditure it will be possible to allow the line to taper upwards. The amendment provides that below grant-related expenditure the line must remain constant and may not be moved either way. There may not be an incentive to reduce expenditure or an incentive to spend up. It works both ways.
I do not think that hon. Members would wish to interfere with the normal determination by authorities of their spending levels—except when they start to move into the area where they could otherwise pre-empt more of the grant when they are, by any criteria on an average assessment, spending substantially more than other authorities need to spend.

Mr. Hattersley: We shall not vote against the amendment, because it removes one coercive element in the Bill. We are against the coercion of local authorities to observe spending patterns determined by the Government. Any reduction in that coercion is to be welcomed, and we are delighted that another place improved the Bill on the Government's behalf.
Of course, the Minister let the cat out of the bag and it is worth reiterating in simpler terms what he said. The Government are establishing levels which they,


arbitrarily and, in my view, without sufficient information, regard as the appropriate levels of spending of local authorities. They are creating the apparatus by which they can hold down authorities to that level. The Government are removing from their armoury any power to push authorities up to that level. As long as they do not spend above the figure, the Government will be delighted and will not attempt to increase the spending to the level that they have determined. If authorities spend above the determined level the Government will use their power to reduce that expenditure. That is typical of the Government's attitude, but we propose to support the amendment because it removes one coercive element from the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 46, line 12, after "means" insert
, subject to paragraph 6 of Schedule [Metropolitan Police District] below,

Mr. King: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 177.

Mr. King: This is a technical amendment in relation to the Metropolitan Police. It makes the definition of grant-related poundage subject to paragraph 6 of the schedule. Its effect will be that in arriving at the grant-related poundage applicable to a local authority in the Metropolitan Police district, total expenditure will mean expenditure after the deduction of a relevant portion of police expenditure.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry]

Clause 51

ADJUSTMENTS OF DISTRIBUTION OF BLOCK GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 48, line 3, leave out from "authorities" to end of line 20 and insert—
(4A) Except as provided by subsection (4C) below, the power—

(a) may only be exercised—

(i) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities; or
(ii) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities belonging to the appropriate class; and

(b) may only be exercised for any such purpose as is specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4B) below.

(4B) The purposes mentioned in subsection (4A) above are—

(a) limiting the change in the amount of block grant payable to an authority for the year from the amount payable in the previous year;
(b) taking account of less than the gross rateable value of an authority or group of authorities in calculating the amount of block grant payable;
(c) reducing, whether in whole or in part, disparities in the rates levied in different rating areas of Greater London other than the Temples; and
(d) any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine.

(4C) The power may also be exercised in accordance with principles to be applied to the councils of counties to whose police expenses section 57 of the Police Act 1964 applies (counties falling partly within the Metropolitan Police District).

Read a Second time.

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out paragraph (d).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 57 and 58.

Mr. Hattersley: I wish that the Minister had moved the Lords amendment first, because he would have had the task of describing the contents of the principal amendment. It concerns the complicated subject of multipliers. Out of respect and sympathy for the Government, I always point out that when they talk about multipliers they do not mean what John Maynard Keynes meant when he talked about multipliers. It is a term invented by the Government in the


past year for what amount to index numbers—a figure that is used to adjust the amount of grant received by each group of local authorities.
When the block grant allocation has been made the multiplier allows the Secretary of State to change the actual receipts of a group of local authorities. The multiplier for one group may be more than one. If so, those authorities' receipts will increase. The multiplier may be less than one, in which case the receipts will diminish. It is essentially an arithmetical mechanism by which the Secretary of State can change the initial block grant receipt to authorities in a certain group or class.
I say "in a certain group or class" because that was the essential condition that the Minister described to us when we debated the matter in Committee. We were told that a multiplier could not apply to a single authority, but had to apply to a group. There is now some ambiguity about that, because the Lords amendment refers to "an authority". I hope that the Minister will make clear that the multiplier provision cannot be used by the Secretary of State to adjust the grant to an authority, but only to a group or class of authorities.
London is the example that is normally quoted, because it comprises the group of authorities that are said to have special problems. As we debated multipliers in Committee and on Report, London was almost always given as the example of how multipliers should be used.
Multipliers would be used to assist with what is called, in the jargon of the rate support grant, dampening—that is, averaging out the receipts from one year to another when the crude rate support grant distribution might mean that receipts so differed from one year to another that an authority's finances could be put in peril because it suddenly discovered that its receipts for one year were appreciably lower than receipts for the previous year. Multipliers, we were told, might be used for the safety net.
8.30 pm
This year, London, on the rate support grant system, had it been applied crudely and simply to London, would have lost more grant than even this Government

were prepared to tolerate. A safety net provision was therefore introduced which said that London should get slightly more than the crude RSG distribution would have provided. Multipliers, we are told, could be used to accommodate that situation in future years. The entire London clawback to make adjustment for difference in needs and difference in standard expenditure was possible under the multiplier. It was for that sort of technical reason that the multiplier was necessary.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure was the case, were in the Chair during the long debates on the Bill, you will recall that the opposition constantly objected to those provisions which give the Secretary of State unfettered discretion and the right to use his own judgement about how an authority should behave, how an authority might be penalised and the level of grant it might receive. We mad:, clear that if a multiplier could be conjured out of the air by the Secretary of State for virtually any purpose and then multiplied by the grant to be received by a local authority or a group of local authorities, this would give the Secretary of State unfettered power to change a grant according to whim or prejudice.
We took the view that the use for multipliers should be stipulated in the Bill. So, I am happy to say, did the House of Lords. My noble Friend, Baroness Stedman, who, if I may say so without offence through suspicion of being patronising, made some of the most informed, authoritative and damaging speeches about the Bill that have been made on any political subject for a long time, described the three areas in which multipliers might be used and could properly be used and moved an amendment to limit the Secretary of State's discretion to those three areas. One was limiting grant changes from one year to the next, colloquially called dampening. One was to take account of less than actual gross rateable value for an authority or group of authorities—the special considerations of a special area. One was to give effect to the equalisation of resources in London—the special acknowledgement of the special needs of London.
The limitation of the multiplier to those three specific areas was a proposition that was put to the House of Lords not


only by Baroness Stedman but by Viscount Ridley. It has already been mentioned in the House today that Viscount Ridley was leader of the delegation to the Secretary of State at the outset of the Lords consideration. The delegation was given information about what the rate support grant would be next year—information that the House of Commons, if it is lucky, will receive on or about 21 November. At the end of the conversations that the noble Lord Viscount Ridley had with the Secretary of State, he withdrew much of his opposition to the Bill. It has been said that the spirit of compromise was encouraged by the information that he received.

Mr. King: One understands that there is a certain latitude in debates of this kind. I would simply like to say that what the right hon. Gentleman says is totally untrue. I state that on behalf of the Government and on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall remind the Minister of State of what I said. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the facts as I recount them are incorrect. At the point when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I had not drawn any conclusions, but four facts are undeniable. The first is that Viscount Ridley, on behalf of the Association of County Councils, began Lords consideration of the Bill in an almost bellicose mood about parts of the Bill. He did not like it. The second fact is that he met the Secretary of State before the Bill was debated. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to write to him with dates and times I can do so. He does not need that information because he knows that it happened. The third fact is that Viscount Ridley and the association were given advance information about next year's rate support grant. A statement was put out by the Department of the Environment that he was not given advance information but given some projections. That appeared in the newspapers the following day. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict what I say, I shall sit down. I shall sit down for whatever he wants to say.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman said that the noble viscount led a deputation to the Department at some time he did not specify. My right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers have met Viscount

Ridley and leaders of the Opposition in the House of Lords. We discussed matters connected with the Bill. Delegations come to see Ministers on all sorts of matters. The suggestion that rate support grant was divulged to any visitors to the Department of the Environment by my right hon. Friend or by myself that has not been disclosed to the House—it will not be possible to disclose such information to the House or to local authorities before some weeks from now—is totally untrue.
I would be grateful if the right. hon. Gentleman would take that from me. What have been discussed with a number of local authorities as part of the consultative council are exemplifications—the right hon. Gentleman knows that this is normal practice—of possible grant distributions. This is the system that his own Government operated. This is the way that it works. They are shown exemplifications. No one in the local authorities knows which exemplifications are likely to be adopted. It is ultimately a matter for Government decision. Although the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make the best case that he can, the suggestion that people have received privileged information is untrue. I should be grateful if he would accept that.

Mr. Hattersley: It is my duty to accept what the right hon. Gentleman tells me and I do accept it. The difference between us is that I said that Lord Ridley was given projections of possible grant patterns and the Minister says—with some disapproval that I should have traduced his noble Friend—that that is not true because exemplifications of possible grant distribution were given. I accept that correction without a second's hesitation.
I must take a further step along the road and remind the Minister of what call the "Ridley meeting". The leaders of the other local authority associations were outraged that the county council representatives met the Secretary of State without them. The meeting was not a routine meeting of the consultative council. That was why it was peculiar and was featured prominently in the press. The meeting did not even represent the common conversations between the Government and the local authorities. The meeting was something special for the county councils. I am delighted


that the Minister has drawn so much attention to that episode because it was only an aside in my speech.
The spirit of compromise, which seemed from that moment to characterise most of the actions by Lord Ridley, spilled over into the amendment that he tabled to limit—as was thought—the Secretary of State's discretion over the use of multipliers. That amendment was almost exactly identical to that proposed by my noble Friend, Baroness Stedman. However, Lord Ridley's amendment added an extra sentence. The original amendment was agreed by both sides in the Lords. It provided that the multiplier could be used only for three specific purposes, Lord Ridley added the immortal phrase:
any such other purposes as the Secretary of State may determine.
That totally destroys any limitation that the original amendment placed on the Secretary of State's actions.
Lord Ridley clearly recognises an elephant's trap when he sees one. When he moved the addition to the amendment he said:
That might be thought to give the Secretary of State a total freedom to do anything he likes in the most dastardly way with the multiplier, and to use it for political purposes, which is what no doubt he would like to do from time to time.
The noble Viscount is right. That is what is thought by my right hon. and and hon. Friends. That is why we wish to remove it from the Bill. Lord Ridley continued:
No one really suspects that the Secretary of State wants to do that in the future.
—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 Oct 1980; Vol. 413, c.685]
I make it clear that I have every suspicion that the Secretary of State would want to use it for that purpose. I have that suspicion for the simple reason that that is how he has behaved in the past.
I shall demonstrate why the Secretary of State's behaviour is not that which justifies such discretion being placed in his hands. We are utterly opposed to a Bill which contains clause after clause which amount to no more and no less than enabling powers. One of the most unhappy features of the Bill, to which the right hon. and learned Member for

Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has drawn attention, is that where there is any doubt about how the Bill should be applied the parliamentary draftsmen are required to write in words such as "or whatever the Secretary of State shall provide", or "in whatever way the Secretary of State feels appropriate." Time after time the operation of the Bill is left to the Secretary of State. It is absurd to leave to him the ability to construct an index number which can be used to reduce or increase grant to a group of local authorities.
I return now to a subject about which I warned the House half an hour ago. The reason why the Secretary of State is patently an unsuitable person to be given this discretion concerns the way that he behaved with the 14 councils that he penalised during the transitional arrangements. I shall remind the House of what happened then.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State announced that he would be taking powers to penalise a group of authorities in a way that he would later stipulate. When pressed to tell us the offence for which they could be punished, he said that it would be if any authority exceeded a notional rate level that he would announce and determine. He then announced a notional rate level that 50 per cent. of councils had exceeded, or would exceed, leaving himself free to choose within that group those that he wished to pick on and penalise.
It is nonsense for the Minister to say that the criteria for punishment and penalisation were announced as early as possible out of courtesy to the Opposition. We asked for the criteria to be published before the House rose so that we could debate them. The Government refused to do that. Suddenly, in September—a few weeks before the Conservative Party conference—the Secretary of State announced that he had picked 14 councils for punishment. I am sure that the Minister is too honest to deny that until those 14 councils were picked for punishment they had no way of knowing the crime that they had committed. They did not know how to avoid committing that crime.
Fulham and Hammersmith council—the only council of the 14 not under Labour control—continues to insist that it was included in the list by mistake.


It attempted to find out from the Secretary of State the criteria that it had to avoid. The Secretary of State could not tell the council the criteria, but led it to believe that it would not be punished. It was punished. That council is not controlled by the Labour Party, but it says that although it attempted to discover the crime that it might commit and thus be punished, no one was able to give it that information until the crime was announced and the punishment determined. That is an intolerable way for a Minister to behave.
It is equally intolerable that there should be weeks of discussion thereafter about whether the criterion eventually determined for judging the 14 malefactors was the most appropriate measure of overspending. I cannot go into the matter in any great detail, but some of the councils will test in the courts whether the Secretary of State used his discretion in a reasonable way, or whether he used it in a way that was both arbitrary and capricious. I do not believe that a widened discretion should be given to a Minister who put himself in a position where there appears to be a case to answer, because, on a previous occasion when he had wide powers he exercised them in a way that probably was not legally enforceable and had to be challenged.
There is no doubt about the reasons why 13 of the 14 councils were chosen for punishment, with the fourteenth being included by mistake. None had done anything remotely illegal. They had exercised their proper rights under the Local Government Acts and used the judgment of the elected councillors about what rate level and spending pattern was best for their areas. That is not only their right but, in successive Local Government Acts, it is the duty of councillors to make up their minds according to local circumstances. Having done that, they are now being punished.
For what reason are they being punished? They are being punished for applying Labour Party spending policy rather than Conservative Party spending policy. They are being punished because they do not accept the philosophy of, and the theory about, local authority expenditure which is the philosophy of the Secretary of State. That is why the

14 authorities were chosen to receive this severe punishment.
The House does not have to take my word, but it must take the opinion of every local authority association, every serious newspaper that has written on the subject, every informed commentator. The way in which the Secretary of State has exercised the discretion over financial matters during the past year has not one friend in the world. The Minister of State has the sad job of trying to justify it.
I shall not vote for the Secretary of State's discretion being extended an inch wider. Neither should any Conservative hon. Member who values local authority autonomy or the proper rights and responsibilities of this House.

Mr. Cant: I should like to comment on what is a controversial issue. I have come to the conclusion, partly based on practical experience, that in this age of leaks one can rely with a fair degree of confidence on what on reads in the newspapers. I had never thought that I would stand up in a quasi-public place to make that sort of confession. Most of the leaks in the past few months have turned out to be quite correct.
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made about what amounts to a biasing of the distribution of the block grant in the direction of the shire counties is without doubt correct. Whatever the mechanism, the important thing is the fact.
At a county council meeting on 16 October, on the basis of what had been leaked in The Guardian, the Financial Times and other publications, I suggested that the county council was attempting to go far beyond what the Government required of it, in that it was making cuts not of 2 per cent. but of 5½ per cent., but that one might regard that with more moderation because the Government would be quite generous to the shire counties. The amazing thing was that this was not denied. Nobody on the Tory side of the county council said "We don't know."
There had been a meeting of the consultative committee on 15 October at which councillors had been shown various


extrapolations and exemplifications. They were not prepared to deny that there had been this pattern of distribution but only made the counter-accusation "Your Government did the same for the inner cities."
I think that the Minister is being a little naive, or thinks that we are being a little naive. As was said in the Standing Committee, the whole apparatus of the distribution of the block grant lends itself to this kind of behaviour by the Secretary of State. It is a technique that he can use for the end that he desires. When we consider how much block grant an authority is to receive, we also consider expenditure, poundages and so forth. But the grant that the authority will receive in the last resort is a consequence of the fact that far beyond the threshold a marvellous tapering effect begins. Here is an element of uncertainty for local authorities, uncertainty that did not exist under the rate support grant. That would be bad enough if for some reason the Secretary of State decided to draw the line one way or another. This clearly will make a great difference to how much an authority receives. When we go further and at the end of the process say that the Secretary of State can multiply the amount that a group of authorities or an individual authority can get by a factor that he decides, the situation is completely transformed.
In Committee I quoted from an article in the Local Government Chronicle in which it was stated that the multiplier concept had been introduced because the Government had not the slightest idea how all these calculations would work out. Therefore, they had to have a reserve power which it was believed would be used in such a way that, having made all these changes in the block grant mechanism, at the end of the day the Secretary of State would say "I shall apply these multipliers so that the situation in respect of different authorities is not changed in any dramatic way."
This is an extremely important device. How the Secretary of State uses it can seriously affect the financial fortunes, or misfortunes, of different local authorities. Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). I have grave misgivings about the use of the multiplier.
I intervened earlier to point out how the Minister's decision that Hackney was an overspender arose. I referred to a base year. The Minister in reply—and I thank him for saying that he will look into the matter—said that it was nothing to do with base years. I should like to draw his attention to what he did. There were three different ways in which this attack on the hit list was made.

Mr. King: I said that it started not from any base year calculation, but from the notional uniform rate and something substantially in excess. I did not go on to explain about the waiver and the way in which the two work because one relates to the outturn expenditure in 1978–79.

Mr. Brown: On the first issue Hackney was determined as having overspent by £24 million. It was so obviously stupid that the Minister had to back off and produce another figure. He then produced a third one. The Municipal Journal refers in glowing terms to how stupid the whole exercise was. Indeed, it finished by saying:
The result is that there are almost as many different answers to the question who is overspending as there are methods of assessment.
Hackney came out in that first attempt to put it on the hit list as being £24 million overspent, and that was not correct. The decision then was to take a base year, and the base year taken for Hackney's multiplier was 1978–79. By taking that as a notional amount and reducing it by 2 per cent., the Minister said that Hackney on its actual expenditure in 1978–79, minus 2 per cent., was 21·5 per cent. overspent on its estimate for 1980–81. That is the basis upon which Hackney is being penalised. It is because of this notional overspending of 21·5 per cent. It is said to be the highest in the country, and it results from the difference between the 2 per cent. less of the actual expenditure of 1978–79 and the estimated expenditure for 1980–81.
In taking 1978–79, Ministers have taken a year when we had heavy industrial action in London. As a result, there was heavy under-expenditure. To take 2 per


cent. less than that is not being reasonable in arguing that that is an average figure which people should take.
What is more, in 1979–80 and 1980–81, Hackney has been encouraged under its partnership scheme to go on spending its money under partnership with the help of the Government. As a result, the estimate for 1980 will be much higher because of the commitment, with the Government, for increased expenditure. As a result of co-operation with the Government, by their choice of a year to make it look bad, Hackney is on the hit list. Therefore, when we talk of a multiplier and the ability of the Secretary of State to choose how and against whom he will use it, the evidence of Hackney indicates the danger of that procedure. I shall want to see it dealt with very much more closely, first to determine exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind.
In the cases that I am identifying, there are a number of boroughs which can be found wanting. The London borough of Wandsworth, for example, under the same examination system that is being applied to Hackney, should be spending only 81 per cent. of its expenditure. Nothing has happened to Wandsworth. Of course, the sceptic will say that it is Tory controlled. I make no such accusation, but it takes a lot of explaining. The same is true of Southwark, which should be spending only 70 per cent. of its expenditure. Southwark is not on the hit list, either. However, one can go to other areas and consider Cambridge, Cornwall, the Isle of Wight, Lancashire, Northumberland, Salop, Somerset, West Sussex and, nearer home, the City of London. They are all overspent under that notional scheme, yet the Minister says that they are different. Of course, they are different. They are Tory controlled.
I know that the Minister feels a little irked when I make these points but, if asks that any Secretary of State be given carte blanche to use any form of system, he has to justify it.
There is now enough evidence to show that there are dangers in giving any Minister carte blanche. It may not be the present Secretary of State. It may be another Minister. It is unwise of the House to give carte blanche unless it is satisfied that it is under parliamentary control. I do not think what we are seeing today is right.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We are talking about a principle here and not about individuals. We know that the Secretary of State, who appears here so rarely, is given to sudden, furious aberrations. He is, after all, the man who twirled round the Mace for some extraordinary reason. It may be that he will have another rush of blood to the head in his Marsham Street office and produce some outlandish multiplier. We have seen the evidence.
I regard that as a trivial aside, of course, because, if the Secretary of State is successful and gets a genuine standing ovation at the Tory Party conference instead of the usual form, he will be shifted, as he was shifted from industry to the environment, the reason being that he was a threat to the Leader of the Tory Party.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend mentions the antics of the Secretary of State with the Mace. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is trivial compared with some of the right hon. Gentleman's other previous convictions such as his conduct in respect of answers on tracked hovercraft in 1973?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Are they included in this amendment?

9 pm

Mr. Cryer: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to take into account the replies on tracked hovercraft mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, the replies on the cost of selling off local authority houses did not exactly inspire the House with confidence in the estimates and ability of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
On the evidence presented to the House, it looks as if this device is a squalid and shoddy political manoeuvre in order to give the Secretary of State the opportunity of producing multipliers which he will use for political advantage and nothing else. We know that the Tory Party is deeply prejudiced against the urban areas. In sheer practicalities, it means that the urban areas will be deprived and that the money will go to the counties.
Labour-controlled local authorities are almost at their wits end in an endeavour


to maintain decent local authority services, which by and large serve the worse off in the community. Educational and social services facilities are the sort of facilities which are most used and appreciated in the urban areas by those in the lower income brackets, yet they will be the people who will be most hit by this sort of potential shift of resources.
The Minister might well say "Of course, that is not what we have in mind". However, unless amendment No. 56 is approved and paragraph (d) deleted, it is possible for the Secretary of State to have virtually anything in mind, because it gives him absolute discretion. I should have thought that the Tories, who pride themselves on their concern for such notions as democracy, the power of Parliament and other such related items, even if they were determined to give the Secretary of State some discretion in the matter, might at some stage or other have thought of consulting Parliament. It would have been easy to have had the phrase
any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine
made subject to an order approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is not uncommon for such a procedure to take place, even though that procedure is not all that satisfactory. But at least it involves some sort of scrutiny, whereas amendment No. 56 as it stands does not. The decision is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is completely unsatisfactory, especially in view of his background.
Quite apart from the personal characteristics of the present Secretary of State, any Secretary of State in a Conservative Government could be sufficiently prejudiced to move funds away from the urban areas in the way that has been outlined, because he will have the power to produce a multiplier, or any combination of multipliers, that will enable him to do so. It is scandalous that the Tory Government and the Tory Party, who make such play with democracy, are so much prone to trample on the rights of Parliament. That is precisely what they are doing, and they are doing it time after time.
I hope that our amendment will be supported. I do not suppose that we shall

get a majority, but it will be something that we shall ram down the throats of those Tories who oppose it every time they open their mouths about democracy. If they support the amendment as it stands, they are voting for total and absolute discretion by the Secretary of State without any reference to Parliament, and that is a disgrace.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). If I understand him correctly, he feels that the further discretion contained in paragraph (d)—
any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine"—
would be outrageous if it remained a discretion of the Secretary of State. He feels that it is a matter that should come before Parliament.

Mr. Cryer: indicated assent.

Mr. King: I am glad to have that on the record. I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may have been misled by the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who referred to "anything that the Secretary of State might decide", or "anything that came into his mind".
I draw the attention of the House to the wording of the amendment. It refers to
any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine.
"Determine" is the word, not "decide", not "think for himself", and not "decide on a casual whim." In this respect, the word "determine" has a specific legal meaning. It means "to make a determination", a determination which has to be laid before Parliament. It therefore fits precisely within the criteria that the hon. Member for Keighley said could make it more acceptable to him. It is subject to the approval of Parliament. The Secretary of State must spell out the purpose in a formal determination in his annual report to Parliament, which must be subject to a vote in this House before it can take effect.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook introduced the dangerous new word "multipliers" and reflected for a moment on what would have been Keynes' interpretation of multipliers. The new block grant system has introduced a dangerous new


concept. I do not think that many hon. Members are familiar with the present rate support grant system, and I do not blame them, because it is incredibly complex. I have with me a document containing about 15 pages of close print, and every page, line after line, contains separate multipliers. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is concerned about the multiplier. Did he know that last year his multiplier was 1·0800? Did he rise in his place and ask why the multiplier for Hammersmith and Fulham was 1·0259 and say that it was an outrage of constitutional dimensions that that factor was not revealed? This document is the rate support grant order for 1979, on which he voted.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and with the hon. Member for Keighley that if there were an unfettered power and that if without the sight of Parliament and without the publication of that information the Secretary of State could do what he liked, that would be unacceptable. That is why the Lords amendment is so worded. It states that the Secretary of State "may determine", and I have sought to make clear to the House the determination.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked whether the amendments would apply to individual authorities. They could apply to local authorities, but they would be different for individual authorities for one good reason, which exists under the present system. For instance, there is a safety net. If it is determined by a general principle that there shall be a safety net at a certain level, it will need the calculation of different multipliers to determine what the multiplier should be for each authority to ensure that they do not go below the safety net. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that example, although I appreciate that it may be complicated for hon. Members who have not been so involved in these matters. I took the inner London multiplier for last year. They are all different, but they are applied according to common principles, which have to be set out in the Order, and which have to be clearly specified. There are also certain single class authorities, such as the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.
I shall not go off into the highways and byways of the transitional arrangements.

I made a moving address on that subject earlier, and hon. Members who missed it may care to reflect on it in Hansard. These amendments deal specifically with multipliers, and I hope that, even if I have not totally reassured the hon Member for Keighley—I do not think that that has been done in the last 10 years—I have at least made some slight contribution towards it. If he reflects on his remarks in Hansard, I think he will find that his points have been met completely.
There are two other technical amendments in this group. As one of the multipliers, one amendment merely limits the change in the amount of block grant payable, so that no authority will suffer too great a loss by a change. There has to be a technical adjustment every year to make sure that the comparison is fair. The other amendment is a technical restatement in the Bill.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister explain whether the approval of the determination under the proposed subsection (4B) (d) is given separately in Parliament—in a separate debate lasting 1½ hours—or whether that is subsumed into all the other determinations that are contained within the single rate support grant order and its successors?

Mr. King: The rate support grant order and the multipliers have been done every year. It is done in a single report in which all the facts on the basis on which the RSG settlement has been made are laid before Parliament, on which Parliament votes. That is the way in which it has always been done before.

Mr. Hattersley: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks.
I do not think that any Opposition Member is disposed to argue with the technical point of determination that the Minister of State made. Indeed, those who spent much time with him in Committee will recall that every time we objected to the Secretary of State being given discretion, the Minister of State told us not to worry, because some time, either late at night or early in the morning towards the end of the Session, shortly after Prayers, the Secretary of State would have to have his decision ratified by the House.
I must tell the Minister, as I told him many times in Committee, that the idea that the Secretary of State, having used his arbitrary and capricious judgement, will be held in check by Conservative Members, acting with the objective interests of democracy close to their hearts, is a theory of the present Parliament which Opposition Members find wholly unconvincing. We do not believe for a moment that if the Secretary of State behaves as badly towards any authorities under these provisions as he is behaving towards the 14 penalised authorities under the transitional

arrangements, the "village Hampdens" opposite will rise up and smite him with their constitutional might. Indeed, I do not believe for a second that Conservative Members are likely to stop the Secretary of State from using his discretion in whatever political way he chooses, to prove which they will vote against my amendment tonight. I press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 170.

Division No. 495]
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Beith, A. J.
Foulkes, George
Morton, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Graham, Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Neill, Martin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cant, R. B.
Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Carmichael, Neil
Homewood, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, Jonn


Cook, Robin F.
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Crowther, J. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Soley, Clive


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilfedder, James A.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Stott, Roger


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, Jack
Litherland, Robert
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Douglas, Dick
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tilley, John


Dubs, Alfred
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Watkins, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


Eastham, Ken
McTaggart, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Winnick, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maxton, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan



Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Field, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Mr. Terry Davis and


Flannery, Martin
Molyneaux, James
Mr. James Hamilton.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)






NOES


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bright, Graham
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Brinton, Tim
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Cockeram, Eric


Berry, Hon Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Colvin, Michael


Best, Keith
Buhner, Esmond
Costain, Sir Albert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, John
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Critchley, Julian




Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lee, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dover, Denshore
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eggar, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Forman, Nigel
Major, John
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Marlow, Tony
Spence, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Squire, Robin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Garol-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tebbit, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald


Grylis, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Moote, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Frippier, David


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Waddington, David


Hawksley, Warren
Murphy, Christopher
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Hayhoe, Barney
Myles, David
Waller, Gary


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Watson, john


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley
Wheeler, John


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Whitney, Raymond


Hum, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wickendon, Keith


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew
Wiggin, Jerry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James
Wolfson, Mark


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir George (Acton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Porter, Barry



Lamont, Norman
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lang, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. John Cope and


Latham, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 59 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause H

ADJUSTMENT OF BLOCK GRANT IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 60, after clause 54, in page 50, line 33, at end insert new clause H:—
H Block grant shall be subject to the adjustments arising out of expenditure by local authorities on education and for connected purposes specified in Schedule [Adjustment of block grant in connection with education etc.] to this Act.

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments No. 61, 64A, and 176. Privilege is involved.

Mr. King: These are technical amendments to do with the education pooling arrangements. Unless they substitute for the arrangements under the previous rate support grant arrangements, they are—

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House. After voting in the Division, I walked over to my office in Norman Shaw, North. On arriving in the building, I noticed that the television annunciator said "Division off". As I walked in the annunciator said that the Division had been timed at 9.12 pm. I see from the official board, kept by the Doorkeeper, that the last Division was at 9.12 pm. The annunciator then said "Division off". The bell went on the annunciator—I do not know about the real bells—and the annunciator showed "Division". I flogged back from Norman Shaw, North to join our enjoyable deliberations. The annunciator must make up its mind. Does it mean what it says?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for any inconvenience that he or any other right hon. or hon. Member may have suffered. Unfortunately, I misinterpreted the signal that the time had come for the door to be locked. I was immediately informed that it was not time for the doors to be locked, and I cancelled the order. The doors were immediately unlocked. I understand that the Tellers are all agreed that everything is satisfactory.

Mr. Dobson: In his brief reference to the amendments, including amendment No. 176, the Minister, in his usual casual way, referred to them as "technical amendments". The addition to schedule 8 is a technical amendment that adds nine pages to the schedule. That makes it a remarkable piece of technicality. Furthermore, it has a significant bearing on the future of local authority funding. The amendment particularly affects the Inner London Education Authority, which is made a local authority for the first time. The ILEA has been transformed into a local authority, instead of being left as a committee of the Greater London Council, not for technical reasons, but to allow the Minister and the Secretary of State to exercise the political bias that earlier clauses permit them.
9.30 pm
I am particularly concerned about the extension of substantial enabling powers in the eight or nine pages of the technical amendment to schedule 8. Those powers give considerable discretion to the Secretary of State and it is fair to assume that, in line with promises he has been making to, and arrangements he has been making with, representatives of county councils, the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that funds will continue to be shifted out of urban areas and into the shire counties. An earlier amendment excluded fish farming from rating provision and brought it in line with other forms of farming. Those living in urban areas feel strongly that the sooner that agricultural buildings become liable for rating, the better.
We shall not see a more blatant example of the shift of resources than in the settlement for the ILEA when the present system of funding is destroyed by the Bill. In future, the Department of the Environment will be able, presumably after consultation with the Department of Education

and Science, to deal directly with, to fund directly and determine directly the sums given to the ILEA by the Government. The object of the exercise is clearly to take funds away from the authority.

Mr. Cant: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that an article in the current issue of Municipal Review sets out the authorities that are most likely to be at risk because of poor quality GREs, and the first authority mentioned is the ILEA.

Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the view of those who, I assume, not even the Government could accuse of political motivation. Even the technicians of the various local authority associations are convinced that the ILEA is the prime target to lose Government funds which will be transferred to the shire counties.
In the past year we have been exposed to the gross prejudices of the Conservative Party against the ILEA. The Baker report emanating from the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was one of the most pathetic propaganda documents ever produced. It was denounced by the technical education press as a shoddy and trivial piece of work. Nevertheless, the trivial and shoddy Government Front Bench took it seriously, as the Government take seriously any document that appears to damage or threaten any organisation attempting to assist working class people get a better chance in life. Despite the fact that it was a pathetic report, the Government set up a ministerial committee chaired by Baroness Young. All sorts of information has been leaking out of the Department of Education and Science, mainly on the lines that, having looked at the matter, it has been concluded that the Inner London Education Authority, as a unitary service, should survive. I hope that the late inclusion of references to the Inner London Education Authority in the amendments is confirmation of that. There are, nevertheless, ways of doing down the Inner London Education Authority and damaging the standard of the education service that it provides besides breaking it up.
It is clear that the Government now intend to retain the unitary service. This committee of Ministers, if they have any grain of sense, could scarcely come to any other conclusion. They are now clearly


attempting to say that they will deny the Inner London Education Authority the money that it needs to continue to provide the present standard of education and will refuse to provide the additional funds considered necessary by those who believe that Inner London Education Authority standards should be improved. I am one of those people.
I am fearful of the consequences of these small technical amendments to schedule 8 that the Minister introduced so casually. I should like to have from the Minister some indication of the processes that it is intended the Government should go through before determining the level of grant to the Inner London Education Authority. There are no criteria applying to any other authority that can be applied to the Inner London Education Authority. Only one one-purpose authority is found in the Bill—the Inner London Education Authority. According to my reading of the Bill, the grants to all other organisations will be determined by assessing the various functions that those councils—district councils, metropolitan district councils, London Borough Councils and so on—carry out. We need some indication of how the Secretary of State for the Environment is to exercise the discretions that he receives under schedule 8 in so far as they affect the Inner London Education Authority.
We need to know what input we can expect from the Department of Education and Science which is supposedly pursuing a policy of improving educational standards and achieving standards of excellence. That clearly is not the case. The impact of the measure before the House is clearly intended to lower the standard of the education service in the London area. I should like to know how the Secretary of State intends to determine this matter. Will the Secretary of State for Education and Science have chats with his right hon. Friend so that his right hon. Friend can exercise the wide discretions granted to him throughout the financial provisions of this Bill before deciding to do down the Inner London Education Authority? These two Secretaries of State, like Burke and Hare, will be descending upon the ILEA and trying to kill it. That will no doubt be followed by the Prime Minister appearing at the Dispatch Box and, when asked about standards of education in the inner London

area, saying "All we have done is to introduce these restraints. It is entirely up to the elected members to decide how to cope with the fact that they have no money". We have the two Secretaries of State acting as Burke and Hare together with the usual Pontius Pilate attitude of the leader of the Government. The Minister owes the House some explanation of how the Inner London Education Authority is to be funded. Such explanations have not yet been proffered by anyone.

Mr. King: I gave the amendments a fairly brief introduction. They are technical, and have nothing to do with the matters that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) sought to raise. They merely consolidate existing statutes and provide for the existing education pooling arrangements and those under the Education Act 1980 to be incorporated in the new legislation. The hon. Gentleman raises much wider issues. If he finds mention of the Inner London Education Authority anywhere in the Bill, no matter in what connection, he appears to see it as an opportunity to deliver the speech that we have heard. I shall, none the less, respond.
He asks how ILEA will be assessed under the grant-related expenditure assessment. It has been done under the expenditure subgroups that have been working in conjunction with the associations, and of course a lead role is played by the Department of Education and Science to try to find, as happens every year, the fairest way in which education expenditure can be assessed. It is not in the Bill and nor was it in previous Bills. It is a matter that is handled separately, outside the legislation. It does not arise on these amendments. I apologise if I am straying outside the strict terms of order of the amendment.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: For the sake of accuracy and in order not to mislead the House or those who may be listening, will the Minister agree that in the Bill there is a change in the funding arrangements for ILEA, in that it becomes eligible for direct control of direct funding, other than precepting on the boroughs, which it does at the moment? For the sake of accuracy and completeness, the Minister should admit


that that is so and that the controls that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) mentioned can and will operate.

Mr. King: I have made it clear that the matter does not arise on these amendments. It was raised on the previous debate. I have already confirmed that ILEA will, for the first time, receive grant direct. It will, however, continue to have powers to precept on the member boroughs. Regarding the pooling arrangements with which these amendments deal, the amendments merely consolidate existing statutes. It is only a change of nomenclature.

Mr. Dobson: I normally find it fairly easy at least to understand what the Ministers attempts to tell us. However, I find it difficult to believe that the points that I make are entirely irrelevant or out of order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make another speech. He may only make a short intervention in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister agree that these technical amendments include provisions that will have an impact on ILEA, for instance, on the apportionment of the English block grant?

Mr. King: The amendments merely consolidated the existing statutes. They make no difference to the previous position under existing statutes.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 64 and 64B agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 59

RATE SUPPORT GRANT—SUPPLEMENTARY

Lords amendment: No. 64B, in page 53, line 35, at end insert—
(5A) Any power to amend regulations made under Part I of the Local Government Act 1974 or section 32 of the Education Act 1980 shall include power to make any such amendments in the regulations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of sections 46 to 58 above.

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 64C.

Mr. King: These are technical amendments, to provide for the education pooling arrangements.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment No. 64C agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 63

EXPENDITURE WHICH AUTHORITIES MAY MAKE

Lords amendment: No. 65 in
page 55, line 22, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection 3(A) below,

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 6669 and the correction thereto.

Mr. King: Amendments Nos. 65, 68 and 69 are technical. It might have been inferred from the wording of the Bill that authorities receiving payments would be able to use them for purposes outside those for which they have statutory powers. The amendments clarify that they are not entitled to make payments for those things for which they do not have statutory authority.
Amendment No. 66 was introduced by the Opposition in the House of Lords and provided that Ministers may not make an allocation to an authority later than 1 November if the authority is not agreeable to receiving it. It is an unusual amendment, but, in a spirit of compromise, we were happy to accept it.
Amendment No. 67 was introduced to exempt from the prescribed expenditure profits from trading undertakings. On reflection, the Government agreed to accept it.

Mr. Oakes: You have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we may discuss the


following manuscript amendments to Lords amendment No. 67:
In page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)" and insert "(d) and (e)".
In page 58, line 44, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)".
The amendments have been tabled by the Opposition to get the Government out of a hole that they dug for themselves. In essence the amendments that we are discussing give the right to a local authority that runs one of the many trading undertakings that are discussed in this part of the Bill to use the profits of that undertaking either to advance the undertaking itself or for other purposes, but not to have that sum of money deducted from its capital allocations. That is a principle that the Conservative exponents of private enterprise, or past exponents of public enterprise, should heartily applaud.
If someone is making a profit it should not be taken away from him by the Government when the enterprise is flourishing, whether it be a private or public enterprise. We see a great deal of common sense in that philosophy, and I hope that Conservative Members see it also.
The Minister, in an offhand manner—I shall not use the word cavalier—said that the amendment was moved in another place and consequently accepted by the Government. The amendment was moved in Committee on behalf of all the associations. The Minister roundly denounced it, and rejected it with the aid of his majority. It was moved again and spoken to on Report, but again the Government introduced their Whips and their majority to beat it down. Now, because their Lordships have moved almost the same amendment, and because of political convenience, the Government have decided to accept it. They dare not fight with their Lordships about the Bill. They have put themselves into that dire position because of their timetable for the Bill.
The Lords' amendment moved and accepted in another place, despite the Government's wishes, goes much further than the amendment that was tabled by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. It includes any civic catering undertaking. We did not have the temerity to include that, but their Lordships did,

and it was accepted. We did not include any exhibition—that is a wide terminology—but their Lordships did so, and the amendment was carried in another place. Although the Government had said in Committee and on Report that our amendment was wrong and not in accord with their policy, for some strange reason they are now prepared to accept not only amendments almost identical to ours but further amendments put forward in another place.

Mr. Keith Best: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Bellwin was very sympathetic, certainly towards what was then amendment No. 107? If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that, and if he has not had the opportunity to read the Official Report of the noble Lord's speech, I can assist him because I have a copy with me.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me, because I do not have in front of me the Official Report of the debate in the other place, but I understood that, no matter how sympathetic Lord Bellwin may have been to the amendment, the Whips in the other place tried to vote it down, but lost. Because they lost, the Government are now constrained to accept the amendment.
I think that the amendment makes good sense. I cannot quote the noble Lord, but I listened to the radio reports of the debate and I can say that the Government were told that the undertakings in question were examples of enterprise, which a Conservative Government should support. They were told that they should not penalise enterprise, whether by a public authority or a private individual. That should make good sense to Conservative hon. Members.

Mr. King: We are accepting the amendment.

Mr. Oakes: That is because the Government were beaten in the other place. It is not that they accepted the amendment there. They cannot vote the amendment down in this Chamber, because they dare not, for fear of the Bill's returning to the Lords.
The amendment seems to embody self-evident truth. It is supported by all the local authority organisations, because it


is a common-sense amendment with wide implications for local authorities.
Lord Hill of Luton was clearly concerned about the airport in the constituency that he represented in this House. That is why he moved the amendment. As with so much else in the Bill, the Government did not do their job properly, so the House must make the difficult decision whether to pass legislation that is inoperable.

Mr. King: Nonsense.

Mr. Oakes: It is the function—indeed, the duty—of Parliament to pass legislation that is operable, and not to fear the consequences of the Opposition's manuscript amendment having to return to the other place for it to reconsider the matter. That is our bounden duty as hon. Members. All that my amendment seeks to do is to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug for themselves by their inefficiency. Having been defeated in the other place, they then did not amend the Bill properly to cover their undertakings there.
The question of airports is crucial. Within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) there is the biggest, and I would say the best, airport in the country—certainly outside London, and probably vying with the London airports. On 6 November, worried about the discrepancy that he could see, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services:
if he will make a statement on the implications of the amendment made in the House of Lords to clause 68 of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which would permit a local authority to increase its expenditure allocations by the amount of the profits of a trading undertaking, such at an airport"—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 658.]
That is a fair and proper question. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
The amendment to clause 68 (now cause 72) of the Bill to permit an authority to increase its expenditure by the amount of profits on a trading undertaking will permit increased capital expenditure by certain local authorities. It will not, however, permit the national ceiling"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Oakes: The reply continues:
It will not, however, permit the national ceiling on the aggregate of local authority capital expenditure to be increased."—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991 c. 685.]
Where are we in view of that reply to my right hon. Friend who is obviously vitally concerned about the great and important Manchester airport in his constituency?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised a point of order earlier today on the whole question of what the Government were doing, or were not doing, as the case may be.
I understand that there have been communications between Government officials at the Department of the Environment and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, I believe, with the Association of District Councils, which is equally concerned about, I was going to say, a hiatus in the Bill. It is not a hiatus. It is a wrong clause. The Government have made a mistake which they now have the opportunity to put right in accordance with what they said in the other place and in accordance with the wishes of the other place. The Opposition are seeking to get the Government out of that hole.
The effect of the manuscript amendment is rather technical. To save the time of the House, I shall read what the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has said rather than try to interpret it. The AMA states:
When the Bill was in the Lords an important principle was established for local authorities to finance capital expenditure from the profits of their trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against their annual allocation for capital expenditure. Thus, places like Luton, with a profitable airport, to give one example, would have uninhibited use of the profits generated by the airport to use those profits for airport improvements, if they so wished, with a view to making the airport even more profitable.
An appropriate provision was written into the Bill, now Clause 63(3)(e) of the latest


version. The Government opposed this provision but the vote went against them. The Government made it dear at Report Stage that they accepted the position and indeed included some of their own consequential amendments.
What was overlooked, however, was that certain further consequential amendments were needed to Clause 63(6) and Clause 69(1)(a). What in effect the former provision says is that any overspend in capital expenditure in the year has to come off next year's allocation. To prevent in regard to expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 63(3)(e), subsection (6), in addition to specifying paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of subsection (3), should also specify paragraph (e) of subsection (3). Clause 69 is the one that gives the Secretary of State power to give directions in relation to capital expenditure where the same consequential amendment is needed.
I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, having discovered this error in the Bill, contacted the Department of the Environment and was assured that the technically defective clause should not operate in such a way as to frustrate the Government's acceptance of the amendment inserted in the other place. But the Department said that it was too late to amend the Bill because it would mean that the whole Bill amended in this way would have to be returned to the other place. That is what we are about. That is why we are sitting here. We are dealing with their Lordships' amendments. If we consider that there is a defect in one of those amendments, it is our duty to say so clearly and to put it right.
The solution found by the Department was a most ingenious one. The solution which the Department had in mind was

to provide an additional allocation of expenditure for the authorities affected. I hope that at least the Minister will assure the House that that additional expenditure really will go to the authorities concerned. I hope that he says so clearly in this House.
That is not the point, however. We touch upon a very important constitutional issue here. I have outlined to the House a defect in the Bill. We have the opportunity, the power and the duty as a House of Commons to put that right. It is our job to send it back to the other place, where I have no doubt their Lordships will accept the amendment which we propose.
I am not asking for an assurance about the devious means suggested by the Department to the AMA, though I hope that the Minister will say that he will adopt that method. I am seeking much more than that. I am asking the Minister to say that the Government have made a mistake. They have made a number of mistakes in the Bill. Half our discussion today has been about mistakes. We made mistakes. Printers made mistakes. All sorts of people made mistakes in the haste to get five years' legislation through in five months. This is another mistake. We have the opportunity to put it right. I ask the Minister to say "We thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to put it right. We accept the manuscript amendment, and we shall send the Bill back to the other place with the amendment so that the defect may be corrected."

Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that the state of Government legislation has not become so chaotic that it is necessary at this late stage of legislating on this Bill to accept a manuscript amendment. It may be that in practice what the Government propose in the Bill will prove wrong. If that happens, it will be up to the Government to come back to the House and ask for amending legislation. I cannot believe that it is right at this stage to accept a manuscript amendment, even though it is moved by someone with the experience of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes).
The right hon. Member said that the Government had been constrained to accept Lords amendment No. 67. That is not so. They have not been constrained to accept it. They have decided very sensibly that another place has done what it is meant to do and improved the legislation.
Having said that, I must admit that I regret that the Government, either in this House or in another place, were not prepared to draft clause 63 more flexibly. It is not uninteresting to note that once again a proposed clause demonstrates a certain contradiction in the attitude of the Government towards local government.
Looking at the long title of the Bill, we see that it is entitled
An Act to relax controls over local government.
However, a little later, the long title points out that the Act is also for
controlling the expenditure of local authorities.
I do not think that the two can be reconciled. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to reconcile these two contradictions within the Bill, and that is one of the reasons why some of us have considerable doubts about some of its provisions.
It is relevant, even at this late stage, to note that even after all the debate on the Bill and this part in particular in this House and another place, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils remain extremely perturbed about the effect of clause 63 and the related provisions in part VIII. It is still felt that the principal effect of the new system proposed in the clause will be

to end the existing freedom of local authorities to supplement capital spending direct from the rates without recourse to borrowing. It is still felt that the existing loan sanction agreements have proved effective in the past in controlling total capital spending. It is still felt that the new proposals have significant disadvantages. In particular, they will treat the capital spending allocations of local authorities one year at a time, yet, as we all know, capital expenditure must by its nature be planned over a period of years.
The local authority associations remain extremely perturbed about the provisions in part VIII. Although I believe that at this late stage we can but go along with what is proposed, and we can but accept the amendments that have come from another place as a means of introducing a little more flexibility than was originally proposed, on the other hand the fact remains that the local authority associations have grave doubts about the capital expenditure provisions.
It is right that a marker should now be put down that many of us in the House, apart from people in local government, will look carefully at the way in which these provisions work out in practice. If the fears that have been expressed about them prove well founded, there is no doubt whatever that there will be great pressure from the House and from local government for further amending legislation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) for his kindly reference to my keen interest in this important debate. He referred to my parliamentary question of 6 November and to the Minister's reply. The Minister's reply to me has revived fears about the Government's intentions with regard to the trading undertakings of local authorities. In particular, there is concern among my constituents about the future development of Manchester international airport, where a great many of the people whom I represent are employed.
Our airport is a highly successful enterprise of the first importance, not just to Greater Manchester, but to a very much wider area. Indeed, it is not too much to say that it is now an enterprise of


national importance. Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for marking the significance of the airport in national terms. Those concerned were deeply concerned about the effect of the Bill in its original form on the future development of the airport. The relief that greeted the inclusion of what is now clause 72 has been replaced by renewed concern.
10.15 pm
My right hon. Friend said that the Government were in a hole. Our amendment gives reassurance and practical help to local authorities. I want a plain assurance from the Minister of State that the Bill will not damage the future development of Manchester international airport. We need an unequivocal statement from the Minister. He knows that there is concern, and if he is any doubt he should consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I am not satisfied that there has been proper co-ordination between the two Departments on this important issue. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. As I said, I want from him an unequivocal statement that the future development of Manchester international airport will not be damaged by the Bill.

Mr. Best: I welcome the amendments moved in the other place by the noble Lord Hill, who in his distinguished career managed to notch up the position of Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1961–62, so, naturally, I follow what he said closely.
The amendment demonstrates the old dilemma of democracy, the question of the reconcilability or otherwise—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has doubts about whether they can be reconciled—between local autonomy and the need for the Government to control local government expenditure. It is an uneasy relationship, and I am not convinced that it is reconcilable. I welcome the amendment because it is an attempt to achieve that.
I accept the need for this Government to control overall local government expenditure, but the amendment points to the fact, which is cardinal, that the Government should not interfere in trade undertakings that are entered into by local authorities, especially when consideration for payment is given which requires the loss of, or prejudice to, an existing

amenity. I refer particularly to the Anglesey marine terminal at Amlwch in my constituency. It has a single buoy mooring that can take any tanker that has so far been constructed of more than 500,000 tons, whereas the Mersey can take only a fully laden tanker of 90,000 tons. The oil is then pumped 78 miles by underground pipeline to the Stanlow refinery.
A Private Member's Bill was introduced in the House, which led to the Anglesey Marine Terminal Act 1972. I pay tribute to my predecessor in the House, now Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who played a significant part in the promotion of that Bill.
Lord Hill moved the amendment in the other place on the basis of a point of principle namely, that where a local authority undertaking makes a profit the local authority should be permitted to deal with that profit as it thinks best in relation to the needs of its community. He pointed to the fact that this principle obtained in the way in which the Government put pressure on nationalised industries to find capital for development from their profits, and in the way in which a private operator hoped to function, in that he should find the cash for his developments from the profits from his undertaking.
I am optimistic that the amendment covers a trading undertaking such as the Anglesey marine terminal, and I am encouraged in that view by a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in which he said:
We would regard the harbour at Amlwch as being within the definition of a trading undertaking. Therefore, any profits arising in a year from the operation of the harbour may be used to supplement Ynys Mon borough council's capital expenditure allocation.
This is not a small matter. Shell pays about £500,000 a year to Ynys Mon borough council in respect of the Anglesey marine terminal. I said earlier that this was an undertaking entered into by the local authority which might prejudice a local amenity. That is right. The inhabitants, through their representatives on the borough council, accepted that there was a danger of oil spillage and other unpleasant occurrences and the quid pro quo was a generous annual payment from Shell. That money has been used by the local authority to support local charitable, cultural and sporting


organisations and, on the capital side, to encourage recreation centres or sports centres in places such as Holyhead and Amlwch.
I welcome the amendment, which is realistic. I am glad that the Government have accepted it, because it points the way towards realism in local government. It is a marker in the direction of continued autonomy of local government, which many of us on the Conservative Benches would like to see.

Mr. Graham Bright: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has accepted the amendment tabled by Lord Hill. I also welcome it on behalf of my constituency, which houses Luton airport. Luton airport last year made a profit of about £2½ million. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the legislation, as it is set out at the moment, will not mean that Luton is penalised in any way for spending that £2½ million on the development of the airport by having its allocation in future years cut down.
The point mentioned by the Opposition is a technical one. I welcome the spirit in which the Government have accepted the amendment, but we should like the Secretary of State to tell us exactly how he will operate particularly the references in clause 63 at page 56, lines 12 to 13. It is a little difficult to understand how it will operate, and this has caused some concern to my borough council.

Mr. King: I should like to respond to to the comments which have been made and particularly to reply to the two manuscript amendments.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said. What is the point of having a revising Chamber if we do not pay attention to its revisions? This is a matter that was pressed on the Government in Committee and on Report. We resisted it, but we continued to consider the matter. It was then further pressed on us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) referred to what my noble Friend said about it in the House of Lords. We had recommended against it, but, the House of Lords having taken its decision, and as it was a finely balanced issue, the Government decided to respect the view

of the House of Lords. I make no apologies for doing so.
I listened very carefully to what was said about the operation of the scheme. We shall be watching the implementation of it very carefully.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked for a blanket undertaking about the future of Manchester airport, which I am not in a position to give him tonight. Let me simply say that, in terms of the Bill, the capital controls and the use of profits, as provided for under the amendment the airport will not be caught by the capital controls. It will therefore be within the discretion of the Manchester authorities to use those profits. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that is as far as I can go, because the matter is relevant to the amendment that we are discussing. I say that because, from the way in which he put the first question to me, I thought that I was being asked to give a blanket guarantee about the everlasting existence of Manchester airport, about which I am not able to speak tonight. But in so far as the Bill affects the capital controls, that is the assurance that I can give.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Perhaps I may remind the Minister of what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade said about Manchester international airport. He was extremely anxious that nothing should hinder the development of the airport. What I wanted was an assurance that nothing in the Bill would contradict what the Secretary of State for Trade said he wanted when he discussed the future of the airport.

Mr. King: I have tried to give my assurance on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I hope that that covers it.
I listened with interest also to what my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said about the oil terminal. I know the close interest that he has taken in this matter. Obviously, I appreciate the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) in this matter as well.
Perhaps I might express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He thinks that the Government are in a hole—I do not feel particularly


in a hole at present—and he has been doing his best to help us out. I very much appreciate his offer, but we do not need it, because we do not happen to be in the sort of hole that he seems to think we are in. Various discussions on this matter are going on, and there have been some ingenious attempts to identify a technical loophole.
This is not a problem in the drafting of the Bill. One important distinction about the profits from trading undertakings is that they are normally not available until after the year in which they are produced. We have decided, therefore, that the best way to deal with this is to make an allocation to cover expenditure, financed from trading profits when they are known. Clause 63(3)(c) enables such allocations to be made. That means, therefore, that if that administrative arrangement is dealt with in that way, that meets the situation. I can give an assurance that that is the way in which we intended to do it and that we shall cover trading profits, and that the spirit of the amendment will be fully honoured in the administration of the Bill when, as we hope, it becomes an Act.

Mr. Oakes: I cannot accept that. First, I thought that at least the Minister of State would have made it clear to local authority associations and local authorities that the spirit of what the noble Lords decided would be carried out. I am not happy that the Minister has even done that, bearing in mind the written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the reply that the Minister gave him in the House today, that he cannot give any undertaking to Manchester airport that would be in accordance with the spirit of the amendment in another place, which is defective and which we have tried to put right.
I should like to give a little anecdote to the House. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I worked on the Bill of

which the hon. Member spoke. It was a very happy Bill in many respects for me, because I was the Whip on that Bill. We came up regularly at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning and twice we failed to get the Bill through. That was a great advantage to me because it ensured that my hon. Friends would never make me a Whip again. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Amlwch terminal is of considerable benefit to the island of Anglesey, an island which I love very dearly.

I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) will support not just the amendment made in another place, but the manuscript amendment that I have tabled, because, I repeat, what we are doing as a House is trying to put this matter right—it is our last chance to put it right—and to put into legislative effect what their Lordships intended, but which would not be in effect because of the defects that I outlined, defects that apparently the Government, or officials of the Government admitted to the AMA and then tried to put right in some roundabout way. We are talking about different years. The Government are saying that they will try to put right the defect in a subsequent year on their undertaking. This is the House of Commons; this is one of the Houses of Parliament. We are legislating. Let us legislate correctly. If this issue should go back to the other place for further consideration, let us have the courage and the guts to send it there and not be dependent on the timetable that the Government are so desperately worried about.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 agreed to.

Consequential amendment proposed, in page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)"—[Mr. Oakes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 106. Noes 149.

Division No. 496]
AYES
[10.31 pm


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Carmichael, Neil


Alton, David
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cant, R. B.
Cook, Robin F.




Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Palmer, Arthur


Crowther, J. S.
Home Robertson, John
Park, George


Cryer, Bob
Homewood, William
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Howells, Geraint
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Jo


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dixon, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, George


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Dormand, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roper, John


Dubs, Alfred
Kilfedder, James A.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
Litherland, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Ewing, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Field, Frank
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Straw, Jack


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tilley, John


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Foulkes, George
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molyneaux, James
Winnick, David


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (wythenshaw)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. George Morton and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. James Tinn.


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





NOES


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Marcus
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Stn)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Christopher


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gray, Hamish
Myles, David


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Nelson, Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Cranley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Brinton, Tim
Hill, James
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pawsey, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hooson, Tom
Porter, Barry


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Butcher, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Cranborne, Viscount
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Denshore
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McQuarrie, Albert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Egger, Tim
Major, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Emery, Peter
Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald


Faith, Mrs Shella
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Trippler, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waller, Gary


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Roger
Ward, John







Warren, Kenneth
Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sit George (Acton)


Watson, John
Wickendon, Keith



Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Mr. David Waddington and


Wheeler, John
Wolfson, Mark
Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69 agreed to.

Clause 66

PART VIII

CAPITAL RECEIPTS

Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 57, line 16, at end insert "or Passenger Transport Executives"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

Mr. Fox: This amendment is a necessary consequence of the inclusion within part VIII of the Bill of capital expenditure by passenger transport executives. Because the capital expenditure of the PTE will itself be prescribed expenditure, it is necessary to ensure that any capital grants repaid by a PTE to a local authority do not score as capital receipts. This amendment brings about that objective.
On amendment No. 73, the Government made clear in the original consultation document on capital controls, issued last autumn, that they proposed to include within the scope of the new system capital expenditure by PTEs. The PTE can undertake virtually any type of public transport capital expenditure within its area. In circumstances where the capital expenditure of metropolitan counties is to be controlled under part VIII of the Bill, it would obviously have been undesirable for PTE expenditure to remain outside the new system.
The clause will mean that all PTE capital expenditure, irrespective of the method of financing, will count against the capital allocation of the appropriate county council. All the definitions, including that of prescribed expenditure, which apply to local authorities for part VIII will also apply to PTEs.
Amendment No. 74—new clause K—ensures that any proposal by a passenger transport executive to acquire a leasehold interest in land or property will be a proposal requiring the approval of that executive's passenger transport authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 57, line 42, leave out from "treated" to "as" on line 2 of page 58, and insert—
, or shall be treated to an extent specified in the regulations, as if they were mentioned in subsection (2) above in addition to or in substitution for those so mentioned;
(dd) that classes of assets shall be treated, or shall be treated to an extent specified in the regulations,".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendment No. 72.

Mr. Fox: As hon. Members are aware, regulations will be made under paragraph 4 of schedule 9 to provide that certain expenditure, for example, on law and order services and on some types of leasing, will not be subject to control under part VIII of the Bill. The amendment is necessary to make certain that parallel regulations can be made under clause 66(5)(d) to provide that assets acquired by means of any decontrolled expenditure shall not be treated as generating capital receipts on disposal. This is logical and does not represent any change in Government policy.
The Government tabled amendment No. 72 to ensure that all payments that constitute prescribed expenditure under part VIII of the Bill will be subject to the existing statutory procedures for the audit of local authority accounts.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74 agreed to.

Clause 74

PART VIII—SUPPLEMENTARY

Lords amendment: No. 75, in page 62, line 6, at end insert
and different days may be so appointed for different provisions and for different purposes; and any reference in any provision of this Part of this Act to the commencement date is a reference to the day appointed under this section for the coming into operation of that provision or, if different days are so appointed for different purposes of that provision, the day appointed for the purpose in question.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 76.

Mr. Fox: Under clause 74 the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport have power to make regulations appointing the day on which part VIII of the Bill shall come into force. That power is not wide enough at present to allow the Minister to bring different provisions of part VIII into operation on different days, or to bring the same provision into effect on different days for different purposes.
If the new capital controls are to take effect from the financial year 1981–2, and if the Minister is to fulfil the duty laid on him by clause 67(1), under which he must notify authorities of their expenditure allocations before the beginning of the financial year to which they relate, clause 63 must be brought into effect before I April 1981.
On the other hand, clause 66(1) draws a distinction between capital receipts which arise "before the commencement date "and those which arise:
on or after the commencement date".
In this case—again assuming that the control system is to operate from 1981–2 the commencement date will be 1 April 1981. Thus the Minister needs a more flexible power to appoint the days on which different provisions of part VIII of the Bill shall come into effect. The amendments will give that extra flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 76 agreed to.

Clause 75

DISTRIBUTION OF PLANNING AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 62,
and in any case not later than seven days

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 84.

Mr. Fox: There was an extensive debate in Committee on the question of the precise meaning of
as soon as may be".
Our intention in using the phrase was to indicate that it should be done as soon as possible—which would normally be a lot sooner than seven days. Nevertheless, during the consideration of the Bill in another place we accepted the argument that some people reading the Bill drafted in that way might be left with a lingering doubt that the man with the responsibility for doing the job in a district council might not have the same interpretation of:
as soon as may be
as the parliamentary draftsman.
I would emphasise that copying the applications to county councils should be done as promptly as possible to avoid delays in deciding planning applications, and to make that point clear I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment should be agreed to.
I turn to amendment No. 78. The new paragraph 19 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972, as set out in section 75(2), provides a machinery for consultation between a district planning authority and the county planning authority on certain types of planning application. The paragraph provides that the classes of applications where consultation is required should be set out in a development order. The amendment brings the specification of these classes into the Bill itself.
The reason districts are to be required to consult counties on development proposals that are of significance to the structure plan is to ensure that counties have an adequate opportunity to make


representations on how the applications should be decided. The new paragraph 19(5) places a duty on districts to take into account any representations made by the county within the period of time which is to be prescribed later in an amendment of the general development order.
A working party of officials of the Department and representatives of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils considered a code of practice for these consultations. The working party included in its consideration the classes of development which should be the subject of consultation and the time limit for the receipt of county representations. The classes set out in the amendment are in essence those agreed by the working party. At the Committee and Report stages in this House hon. Members were anxious to know what the code of practice would contain. They will, I hope, be reassured to see the substance of that code of practice now incorporated in the Bill by this amendment.
I turn to amendment No. 79. Concern was expressed, in this House and elsewhere, that there did not appear in the Bill a specific requirement that district councils in exercising the wider development control powers given to them by the Bill should have proper regard to the structure plan. The reason for the Government's not including such provision in the Bill was that district and county planning authorities already have such a duty, as part of the general duty laid on them in section 29(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to
have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application".
We resisted proposals for any additional duty to be laid on districts which would prevent them from departing from structure plans in appropriates cases where they had followed the procedures. Nevertheless, we recognised the concerns that lay behind the requests for an additional duty. To meet these concerns we were able to accept this wording which spells out local planning authorities' duties in this respect without preventing districts from exercising legitimately and reasonably the powers that are conferred on

them. I ask the House to agree to this amendment.
Amendment No. 80 is a pure technicality, which is necessary as a result of amendment 79 which inserts an additional subsection into clause 75. This amendment ensures that it is clear to what enactment the following subsection relates.
Amendments 82 to 84 extend the scope of "county matters" in respect of applications relating in one way or another to mineral developments. We accepted these amendments after discussions with the CBI—representing the mineral operators—and consultations with the local authority associations. The effect of the amendment is to achieve a greater consistency of treatment of these cases and to concentrate in the hands of the county planning authority responsibility for developments closely related to mineral extraction.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: It is well known that I am not a great enthusiast for this Bill, but I join in paying tribute to what the other place has done to improve it. It has demonstrated once again how important the other place is in our constitution. As a result of the House of Lords' efforts, we have 98 pages of amendments at the no doubt competitive price of £4.40. We shall dispose of them all this evening. It is, therefore, not possible to make comments on all the matters to which I would have referred in other circumstances in a number of speeches.
Amendment No. 77 is a sensible alteration of a time limit. I am not so happy about amendments Nos. 78 and 79. Amendment No. 78 relates to the division of planning functions between counties and districts. When we discussed that matter previously, I suggested that there was a considerable blurring of functions. As a result of the arrangements and discussions in another place, we have an amendment that does nothing to rectify the basic faults of the new system. It serves only to highlight them. The amendment still maintains the two levels of planning authority, but with more rather than less overlapping, and with a greater degree of complexity than existed previously.
The system is not uniform because there is no amendment corresponding to


amendment No. 78 to alter the new system in Greater London. That remains in its original state. The Minister, who puts these matters forward in such a reasonable manner, said that we now have a clear code of practice, which we all want. I suggest that that optimism may not prove to be well placed. The definitions are not well drafted and—I wax more enthusiastic on this point—there is likely to be an increase in litigation.
Amendment No. 79 is an example of the sort of thing in the Bill that caused me to describe it as a monstrous legislative morass. What does the amendment mean? What are "the general objectives" of the structure plan? Under clause 6(3) a structure plan is now, and acording to amendment No. 184 will have to be, a written statement containing the authority's
policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land".
Will the Minister say which of those "policies and general proposals" are" general objectives" of the plan? Are they some of the policies and the general proposals, are they all of them, or are they none of them? How are those general objectives to be identified? Will the Minister say what a duty to seek the achievement of those general objectives involves? The Minister in another place said that the effect
would not be to prevent a district council granting permission for a development which departed from the structure plan."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 896.]
If so what does that duty require a local planning authority to do? For example, is it required to refuse permission for a development that complies with the provision of a structure and local plan because it believes that, notwithstanding that it complies, the general objectives of the structure plan may be better achieved by a refusal? Is it required to grant permission for a development that conflicts with a structure plan simply because it is of the opinion that the general objectives of the plan will be better achieved by granting permission? Those are the sort of doubts that will arise. A developer will ask what reliance can be placed on the provisions of the plan

itself when, on the one hand, it talks of the provisions of the plan that must be complied with, and, on the other, of the general objectives that must be complied with.
11 pm
There is another difficulty. When he calls in an application, the Secretary of State will be in a somewhat different position. On a call-in he is normally in the same position as the local planning authority; he must normally have regard to the same considerations. That is the position that arises under section 35(4) of the 1975 Act, but because that section is not, it appears, to be consequentially amended as a result of the Lords amendments, the Secretary of State will not be under a duty to seek the achievement of the general objectives of the structure plan.
Therefore, one may ask why the considerations and objectives to be considered in determining a planning application should vary according to whether it is the local planning authority or the Secretary of State that gives the decision in the first instance. It is different on an appeal, because then the Secretary of State may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance. Does that mean in these circumstances that he is subject to the same duty or not?
The question also arises how the new duty is to be reconciled with the new section 14(8) of the 1971 Act, which is inserted by schedule 11, paragraph 5(c). That provides:
Where there is a conflict between any of the provisions of a local plan which has been adopted or approved under this section and the provisions of a structure plan which has been approved under section 9 of this Act, the provisions of the local plan shall be taken to prevail for all purposes.
It might be agreed in any event that that is a rather mischievous provision, but now what has arisen is an absurd conflict of statutory requirements.
How does my hon. Friend think we can reconcile these differences where there is a conflict between the provisions of a local plan and a structure plan in a district council that has now at one and the same time to do three things? First, it must have regard to both plans, as it is required to do under section 29(1) of the 1971 Act. That is not affected.


Secondly, it must treat the provisions of the local plan as prevailing, by virtue of section 14(8) of the 1971 Act, as it is now to be inserted in the Bill. Thirdly, it must seek to achieve the general objectives of the structure plan, if the amendment is adopted.
I have taken only one example out of the Bill of that sort of problem which reflects the difficulties and dangers inherent in pushing through this vast agglomeration of legislation in one evening.

Mr. Fox: Without meaning to be discourteous to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), may I say that his antagonism towards the Bill and our proposals has been consistent? I would not seek to debate with him the merits of certain planning Acts or our attitude towards structure plans compared with his attitude when he occupied a position of some authority at the Department of the Environment.
In our proposals we do not see structure plans as continuing to play the same part as they have played in the past. In our proposals to give district councils more say in such matters it follows that the local plans, when they are prepared, will have considerable power. But we do not expect that 1,600 local plans will be brought forward.
I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's misgivings. He seems to make less of an assumption that we shall achieve what we want by agreement than we do. After all, we brought all the local authority associations together to establish a code of practice. We believe that it will work, with good will.
Once we have got the Bill through tonight, or tomorrow morning, we shall have seen enough of legislation for a long time. We must tell all those involved "Let us apply common sense and make the system far more positive that it has been in the past."

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 84 agreed to.

Clause 76

FEES FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 66, line 42, at end insert—
(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he thinks fit for the payment to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an application for planning permission which is deemed to be made to him under the planning enactments.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 86 to 89.

Mr. Fox: When the House considered clause 76, hon. Members on both sides expressed unease at the proposal to take powers to charge for planning appeals. We made it clear then that we had taken no final decision on whether to impose charges for appeals. We were well aware that there were issues involved in charging for appeals wider than those raised by charges for planning applications. We were anxious that these issues be discussed fully before we took the final decision. The decision that we took was that the balance of argument weighed against charging for appeals, and in another place the Government accepted amendment No. 86.
However, amendment No. 86 taken alone has the further effect that a person who proceeds with development without planning permission, but subsequently obtains from the Secretary of State the permission that he needs on an enforcement or established use certificate appeal, can successfully avoid payment of the planning application fee which he should have paid at the outset to the local planning authority. Amendment No. 85 remedies this defect by enabling the Secretary of State to charge the appropriate fee in such cases.
The remaining amendments are technical drafting amendments consequential on the first two.

Mr. Graham: I should like to press the Minister a little further on the precise moment at which the Government decided not to proceed with the legislative proposals to make a charge for planning appeals.
When we discussed these matters in Committee and in the House—I have read the proceedings very carefully—the hon. Gentleman always distinguished between the intention and the manner in which the House would need to approve the charges for planning applications and appeals.
This is yet another illustration of the extent to which parliamentary time and money has been expended, not least the considerable agitation that has been caused throughout the country, because the Government, in their haste to pack as much as they could into the Bill, have now decided that there may come a time when they will want to make a charge for planning appeals. The Government, in pursuit of their all-embracing agglomerate, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, have incurred a great deal of wrath throughout the country.
I speak for my own locality, ratepayers' associations and many other local organisations. The Government should be ashamed of the slipshod manner in which they have sought to ensure that all eventualities are taken into account. They have set in train agitation and concern for many people.
The Greater London Council, when it looked at this matter, fully subscribed to the broad intention of the Government of raising money. The GLC, at the appropriate time, said that it certainly supported the concept of encouraging the development of alternative sources of income in a period of financial restraint. That was the peg upon which the Government hung this matter, and they said that they looked forward to a recoupment, or non-payment in the rate support grant, of about £ 30 million. That sum was based on an assessment of what they thought they would raise from charging for planning applications and of what they might be able to recoup from appeals. To be fair, when the matter was discussed, we were given the precise amounts that the Government thought they would charge for applications and, again to be fair, they were broadly in line with the figures given by the Minister in Committee.
I should like the Minister not merely to say that the Government have dropped

the proposal but to give the House what it has not been given at any stage, which is the case for charging for planning appeals.
The Minister said that he had listened carefully to all the representations on the matter, especially those in another place. I believe that the change of mind has come about following pure, mature reflection on the enormous damage which charging for planning appeals would do to the very concept of equity and fair play in our planning legislation.
Before the Minister is allowed to get away with yet another modest Government U-turn, I hope that we shall be told the Government's thinking on the matter. We have already seen their change of mind about the ability of local authorities and municipal undertakings to spend the profits made from their own undertakings for their own good. The Government are extremely adept at deciding when to listen to the other place and when not to. Later, when we come to the provisions dealing with new towns, we shall have yet another illustration of the way that the Government decide selectively to listen to the will of the other place. On that occasion, they were beaten twice. They decided to have another bite at the cherry upstairs but to let one of the new town amendments come down here.
The Minister has a duty to tell the House what motivated him and the Government in the first place in deciding that it was proper to swell the Exchequer or to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by £10 million or £15 million rather than telling us that he had been persuaded by the arguments in the other place. What was the case, if there every was a case, for charging for planning appeals?

Mr. Sydney Chapman: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been a little unfair towards my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
I say only that I have been critical for some months about certain aspects of the proposal to charge for the submission of planning applications. My view has always been that the charge should be only on the planning permission, because in certain cases local


planning authorities might reject planning applications with which they agreed in order to encourage revised applications.
My arguments have not persuaded my hon. Friend, of course, but he has come part of the way by not going ahead with the proposal to charge for planning appeals.

Mr. Graham: Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) illustrated the nub of the Opposition's resistance to charging for planning applications. The hon. Member referred to planning permissions. The charges are not for planning permissions. Any such proposal would be heinous. But, inadvertently, the hon. Member said that, and, in the minds of many people, they will be paying for planning permissions.

Mr. Chapman: I did not say it inadvertently. I said it deliberately. My point was that I believed that the charge should be on the planning permission, and not at the time of the submission of the planning application.
My hon. Friend turned down that request because he felt that some people might think they were buying planning permissions. Given that, my hon. Friend has listened to powerful arguments and rejected the original intention in the Bill to charge for planning appeals.
If a local planning authority turns down a planning application to encourage a revised one and get more revenue—and I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Exchequer dealing with that aspect—and if the applicant feels aggrieved, he can go to a planning appeal without having to pay a fee. I see this as part of a more comprehensive approach by the Government, and, in reply to a written question answered today, the Secretary of State announced that he intended to put forward a general development (amendment) order, the purpose of which would be to remove more minor applications from the need for planning permission. I hope that that will help speed up the dealing, not only with planning applications, but with planning appeals. I see this as part of the jigsaw. I welcome amendments Nos. 85 and 86, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They have been put

down not as a result of pressure from the other place but because my hon. Friend has listened to the arguments which may have been made in Committee by the Opposition but which have certainly been made, to my knowledge, by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), and other Conservative Members. I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to agree to these amendments.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he said a moment ago? Is he really saying that during the day on which we have been debating the charges and changes of procedure for planning applications he received a written answer from the Minister setting out new procedures?

Mr. Chapman: I have long been pressing for an amendment to the general development order. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), put forward a general development (amendment) order when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, which he withdrew. I have been pressing for an amendment to that order, and I put down a question yesterday to which I received an answer today. It will doubtless appear in the Official Report tomorrow.

Mr. Hattersley: People who respect this House will discover in astonishment that written questions put down yesterday are now answered today. Not all hon. Members are able to enjoy that remarkable privilege. It must be enormously embarrassing for the Under Secretary of State to take part in a debate on behalf of the Government and find that information on the same subject is being passed to the House in a different direction. That simply reinforces what my hon. Friends and I have been saying throughout the proceedings on this Bill. The Government treat the House with scant courtesy in these matters. If they had treated the House with anything approaching respect, instead of an answer being communicated in that way we would have been given it properly. I am happy to sit down so that the Minister can apologise for the conduct of his colleagues.

Mr. Chapman: I must correct one point. In the reply to my written question, the Secretary of State said that he intends to put forward a general development (amendment) order. In his reply to my question he gave more detail about the amendment. That has been a subject of discussion over the weeks and months. I see nothing improper in that, and I take exception to the suggestion that I have been part of a conspiracy to cover up something. If that had been the case, I would hardly have mentioned it.

Mr. Rippon: I congratulate the Government on having changed their mind with regard to their original intention to charge for planning appeals. That is wise and we should express appreciation that the point has been taken.
I still regret the determination to maintain charges for planning applications. Although these amendments appear to go some way towards remedying some of the anomalies which we considered in earlier proceedings, there might in certain circumstances—apart from the danger of appearing to buy planning permission—be more logic in charging for the planning permission, in the sense of charging for the development that will take place. Some people are afraid that they may have to pay over and over again as they put forward various amended applications to try to meet the local authority's wishes.
I welcome amendment No. 85 inasmuch as it enables the Secretary of State to make provisions for payment to him of a fee in respect of an application for planning permission which is deemed to have been made to him. I appreciate that it is designed to catch some of those who might find an alternative way of establishing planning permission without making the appropriate planning application and attracting the fee. But this applies only to two rather special cases—where there is an enforcement appeal or an established use certificate appeal.
I suggest that the amendment still does nothing to reduce the incentive which will exist concerning smaller developments, in that they are not covered by the somewhat unexpectedly controversial suggestion that there may be an amendment to the general development order. There will still be some incentive not to apply

for planning permission, in the hope that action will not be taken.
It may also work unduly harshly, for if the appeal which amendment No. 85 covers is based on other grounds apart from the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, and then succeeds, the Government may still be committed to charging a fee. If an appeal succeeds on the ground that no planning permission at all is required, the fee will still be charged. That seems to be a little harsh.
I still feel some anxieties about giving to any Secretary of State such a wide power to vary and make charges at his discretion, subject only to the affirmative resolutions, which we know do not always give rise to full opportunities to debate the merits of proposals.
Looking at the provisions as they stand, I would continue to take the view—it was expressed by others in the other place, including Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that it is wrong in principle to make these charges.
I can find only two justifications for them. One was in a speech that the Secretary of State made on 13 September 1979 to the Royal Town Planning Institute summer school, when he said:
I see no reason why prospective developers should not pay for the service which their demands create.
I am not so sure that it is right to describe planning as a service to the developer. It is a constraint upon the developer and, perhaps too infrequently, a service to the Community.
As the Under-Secretary of State said,
I find it difficult to accept the argument that somehow the general taxpayer should pay for the improvement to someone else's property or whatever. The person who gains is the person who puts in the application."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 April 1980; c. 2198.]
But no one, as I see it, is suggesting that the general taxpayer should pay for the improvement to anyone's property. The persons who are supposed to gain by the improvement to the general amenities which the developer brings about—otherwise he would not get the planning permission—are the public.
It would perhaps be more honest if we acknowledged that the real purpose of the provision is to raise money. The Minister in another place was quite frank when he talked of the need to get £30


million revenue as "the basic fundamental point". It might have been better to say that "There is not much principle on which we can stand but we shall raise a considerable amount of money."
Will the Minister reveal just how much he thinks that collecting the fees will cost? I recall that when the Department of the Environment was considering charging fees for building regulations control it said that it would increase local authority expenditure by £2¼ million, even—a quite important proviso—if there were no new staff required.
I understand that there was a reference in the other place to the Birmingham city council having estimated that at least 25 per cent. of the new fees that will be collected under the new Bill will go into the employment of extra staff. If that were true, it would appear to make a great deal of sense at the present time, but perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance that those estimates of the costs of collecting these fees are rather inflated, and he may be able to give better and lower ones.

Mr. Graham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on this situation? Not only will the increased charges have to be found for the additional staff, but also, at the same time, developers and individuals are having to pay for building regulation costs as well. By the time that those two are added, will not this be part of a twist to the inflationary spiral?

Mr. Rippon: I think that there is controversy over the new building regulations. Added to the cost of development, this is something that we ought to consider very seriously. It is really a way of raising taxation from people who are very often bearing a heavy burden.

Mr. Fox: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to one or two of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) asked at what point the decision was taken not to charge for appeals. Originally, we started out on the basis that, having accepted that the exercise was to offset public expenditure—let us be truthful; every Government Department has been involved in this exercise—it seemed that within our responsibility

was a legitimate area in which to recoup some of the cost of the development control system. Various pressures were put upon us, and we realised that only some £ 4 million or £ 5 million of the £ 30 million came from appeals. That also has a bearing on it.
Many people had a part to play in influencing us in this decision. In Committee and on Report it became obvious that, although there was no charging for planning applications, there was no certainty that the House would accept carrying that further into appeals. Indeed, the Council on Tribunals also expressed some anxiety about the principle.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, having charged once for a planning application it would be adding insult to injury for someone to have to get justice by going to appeal and having to pay again.
It was a combination of factors that drove us to this conclusion. It would be fair to say that our minds were made up and it was obvious that in the other place there was the opportunity to make it quite clear that we were not going to take that decision. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, even in Committee we made it quite clear that we were open to discuss this matter and that nothing had been finalised.
The feigned anger of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at what he had heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet regarding the general development order is surprising. In Committee we made it clear that this was a move to come at another time. Obviously it had nothing to do with this Bill, other than to remove a certain number of planning applications from the system. The right hon. Gentleman must know that a consultation paper has been published on this amendment. The hon. Member for Edmonton will wait with bated breath, because I can tell him now that we have made certain concessions which will please him enormously. Along with, I think. 99 colleagues to whom I have written in the normal course of my work, he will be getting a letter to let him know at the first opportunity what we have done. I do not see anything underhand in this. I should have thought that hon. Members would be delighted that we are acting with such speed.
I am grateful for the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, in terms of the cost of collection. I wonder why it is that, whenever local government is put in a position of collecting fees or doing some such thing, automatically people talk about increased manpower. We said in Committee and we have constantly repeated that if we keep this as a simple procedure, under which everyone knows exactly what the fee will be for a planning application, it should be a very simple matter to open an envelope in the planning department of the town hall and extract a cheque which ought to match up with the fee. In no circumstances do we see the growth of bureaucracy that certain people are casting around as being the consequence of our actions.
To deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham about charging for an enforcement appeal which succeeds, I can tell him that there is every intention to refund the charge in those circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments 86 to 89 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 77

LOCAL PLANS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Lords amendment: No. 90, in page 67, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 1 on page 68 and insert—
15A.—(1) Where—

(a) a local planning authority have prepared a local plan; and
(b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its adoption as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and
(c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

they may take those steps and adopt the local plan, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
(2) Where—

(a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals for the repeal of a local plan and its replacement with a new local plan; and

(b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its repeal and replacement as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and
(c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the new local plan,

they may take those steps and repeal the existing plan and adopt the new one, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
(3) Where—

(a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals—

(i) for the alteration of a local plan; or
(ii) for the repeal of a local plan without its replacement with a new plan; and

(b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to the alteration or, as the case may be, the repeal of the local plan as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and
(c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

they may take those steps and adopt the proposals, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
(4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) to (3) of this section may be exercised by a district planning authority notwithstanding that they have not obtained a certificate under section 14 (5) or (7) of this Act, but subject to the other provisions of that section and to the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of this Act.
(5) Before adopting—

(a) a local plan; or
(b) proposals for the repeal or alteration of a local plan,

in exercise of the powers conferred on them by this section, a local planning".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 91, 94, 184 to 199, 241B, 241C, and 242 to 245.

Mr. Fox: The sole purpose of amendment No. 90 is to correct defects in the drafting of new section 15A. Amendment No. 90 makes it clear that, once a direction has been issued by the Secretary of State under that section, the local


planning authority should be able to proceed with the steps leading to the adoption of the local plan, or with the adoption of proposals for an alteration of the plan, in circumstances where the structure plan, unapproved at the time of direction, has been approved before the local plan or proposals can be adopted. The amendment also makes it clear that the authority's discretion to decide whether the plan should be adopted is unaffected by the Secretary of State's direction.
Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 make a number of minor, drafting corrections.
Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 brought three new proposals to the structure plan provisions of the Bill and in so doing amended another provision already in the Bill when it left this House. One of the matters with which the amendments are concerned is the form and content of structure plans and proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of approved structure plans. They follow upon and reinforce the effect of a change made at the end of last year to the regulations which govern the approval of structure plans. That, in turn, originated from a proposal in our White Paper dealing with central Government controls over local authorities.
Amendment No. 186 makes a useful alteration to the provisions of section 10(c) of the 1971 Act. It removes a provision giving the Secretary of State power to make development plan schemes. These are no longer needed because schemes are now in force throughout England and Wales. It gives the Secretary of State direct powers to amend development plan schemes in response to representations by the district council. This power will replace his existing powers of direction to the county planning authority.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 189 remove the requirement to prepare and publicise reports of surveys under sections 6 and 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 when local plans are prepared. They bring the local plans procedure into line with the changed procedure for structure plans which will result from amendment No. 184.
Amendment No. 188 completes the change in the responsibility for selecting action areas which is begun in amendment No. 184 by the repeal of section

75 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. By virtue of these two provisions, action areas will not in future be indicated in the structure plan and the question whether there should be an action area or local plan will be decided entirely in the context of local plan making.
I come to amendments Nos. 189 and 192. The Government recognise that there will be occasions when a deposited local plan will be uncontroversial. It is even more likely that this could be the case in respect of proposals to alter, repeal or replace a local plan already adopted by the local planning authority or approved by the Secretary of State. It could well be a waste of public money to hold an inquiry in such cases.
I also recognise that there are a number of objectors to local plans who are quite prepared to rely on their written objections and do not want to take part in an inquiry. When everyone is content to rely on their written objections, useful savings of time and money can be made and at no cost to the rights of the individual. After considering the objections, the local planning authority must advertise any modifications that it proposes to make to its plan and there will be a further opportunity to make objections. The Council on Tribunals has been consulted and has said that it has no objections to the discretion being given to local authorities.
I turn now to Lords amendment No. 190. At Report stage in another place an amendment relating to the same matters as this amendment was moved by my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and was agreed. As my noble Friend Lord Bellwin pointed out then, and as Lord Stanley recognised, there were flaws in the drafting which called for correction. This amendment, which seeks to make a more general revision of section 14 of the 1971 Act, was agreed on Third Reading in another place.
Lords amendment No. 191 reflects the concern of the county planning authorities that section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by paragraph 5(c) of schedule 11 to the Bill, would make the provisions of local plans override the provisions of the structure plan in all circumstances, even where the structure plan had been altered and the local plan was no longer in conformity


with it. We acknowledge that it would be wrong for the local plan to prevail in these circumstances.
Lords amendment No. 193 is a drafting amendment which became necessary because of amendments made to paragraph 6 of schedule 11 in Committee in this House.
Lords amendments Nos. 194 and 197 extend to Greater London two procedures relating to local plans. The first would require the GLC to certify local plans prepared by the London borough councils as being in general conformity with the structure plan, a measure which already applies outside London. The second amendment would extend to Greater London the measure in this Bill requiring the so-called "recertification" of operative local plans if the structure plan is subsequently approved or altered.
Lords amendment No. 198 makes alteration to the wording of paragraph 19 to schedule 16 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is consequential on the provisions of paragraph 3 of schedule 11 to this Bill.
Lords amendments Nos. 241B, 241C, 242, 243, 244 and 245 are all consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 91 to 96 agreed to.

Clause 92

THE AUTHORITY'S FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 79, line 21, after "drains" insert "sewers"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 206.

Mr. Fox: These amendments will together provide the Land Authority for Wales with the power to requisition sewers from the water authority. These would be sewers for the domestic drainage of buildings to be erected on development sites by subsequent owners or developers.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 98 agreed to.

Clause 105

EXTENSION OF POWERS TO MAKE GRANTS FOR RECLAMATION OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 91, line 3, after "section" insert
"county" includes Greater London and "district" includes a London borough, and accordingly—

(a) any reference to the council of a county includes a reference to the Greater London council; and
(b) any reference to the council of a district includes a reference to the Council of a London borough;"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
One effect of clause 105(2) as drafted would be to deprive the London authorities of a grant under section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 to which they might otherwise have been entitled. That was certainly not our intention, and we welcome the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 114

SUMS TO BE PAID TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 97, line 20, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 114 enables the Secretary of State to direct a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns to pay him a specified sum on a certain date. We expect the new towns to raise this money from the sale of industrial and commercial assets using the powers of disposal in clause 115.
Subsection (3) merely provided the simplest and most appropriate procedure for enforcing a direction in the unlikely event of a new town failing to comply. But another place, with its unerring eye for detail, took exception to the subsection. Some noble Lords denounced it as wicked and detrimental. I can assure the House that it had no such sinister intentions. But since it raised sufficient worries in another place to cause a majority to want to delete it, we are prepared to leave it out as we are satisfied that the Bill is workable without it.

Mr. Hattersley: Oh.

Mr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that we occasionally bow to votes, whether they be in the other place or here.
As I was saying, we are satisfied that the Bill is workable without subsection (3). The amendment does not, therefore, affect the basic policy of this part of the Bill, and I ask the House to agree to it.

Mr. John Evans: Contrary to what the Minister said, this was a substantial defeat for the Government in the other place. This was a classic example of the other place performing a noble service in the cause of good local government and democracy. The Government are accepting the defeat because they have to. They have no alternative.
I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have adopted the right strategy. My view—and I accept that I have not given it all that much thought—is that we should oppose the Lords amendment and encourage the Government to vote against us so that this could go back to the Lords, because in the limited time that is available the chances are that not only the clause—which is iniquitous and disgraceful—would disappear but the whole damned Bill too. Some important points were made in the other place, and I shall refer to them in a moment.
What affect will the amendment have on the clause? Under subsection (1) the Secretary of State is taking powers to direct a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns to pay to him
on the date specified in the direction, such sum as is so specified.
Already in this financial year the Secretary of State has specified that the new towns shall pay to him a sum of £100 million. To this day the right hon. Gentleman has no authority to demand that sum from them. Indeed, the chances are that in some areas the right hon. Gentleman has acted illegally. I challenge him to deny that he acted illegally in his direction to the new towns over the payment of £100 million, and we know that he has directed them that in the next financial year they must pay to him £200 million.
The right hon. Gentleman does not have the authority to do that. I submit to the House that once the measure is on the statute books he will not have the power to force the commission or the corporations to pay to him anything like £200 million. We know that under subsection (1) he will have the power to direct a development corporation or the commission to pay to him certain sums of money, but with the deletion of subsection (3) he has no power to do so. In that respect, there are certain elements in the clause that should be considered carefully.
In the interesting debate in the other place my noble Friend Baroness Denington put her finger on the issues facing democratic government in this country. We know that the record of the Secretary of State on the question of democracy is appalling, but even he has succeeded in over-reaching himself on this occasion. It is worth repeating to the House what my noble Friend said when referring to what the right hon. Gentleman has said to the meeting of the chairmen of new towns, which he convened:
But I have been through this story, and to me it is a very distressing story"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980, Vol. 413, c. 1140.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Member is quoting from the speech of a Minister in the other place, he must paraphrase and not read the extract.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for correcting me. My noble Friend referred to the diktat of the Secretary of State at the meeting that he convened of the chairmen of the new towns, when he ordered them to hand over £100 million of their assets to him. It was said that he had merely ordered them to hand over the assets. My noble Friend said that when the development corporation of which she was chairman had attempted to carry out the diktat of the Secretary of State and discussions took place with those responsible for the GLC pension fund about taking over certain of its town centre assets, it was told by the solicitor acting for the GLC that it was not possible to proceed with the agreement between the GLC pension fund and the development corporation


because it was illegal. That brought the proceedings to a stop.
11.45 pm
The Secretary of State, arrogantly as usual, has assumed powers that he does not possess. He has overridden the democratic process with the arrogance that is typical of him. He was not prepared to wait until the democratic processes had taken their course.
The Minister says that the deletion of subsection (3) does not mean a great deal. I submit that it will mean a very great deal. My advice to the development corporations, especially the Warrington new town development corporation—a great deal of its area is in my constituency—is completely to ignore the Secretary of State's direction because he does not have the power to enforce it.
I know that subsection (4) states that the debts shall carry interest. Theoretically the interest could mount up if there is a refusal to obey the right hon. Gentleman's diktat to hand over the assets to him or to sell valuable assets that the Warrington new town development corporation and other corporations possess to meet his demands. I advise the corporations that the next Labour Government, which cannot be too long delayed, will totally ignore the iniquitous debts that the right hon. Gentleman will cause to accumulate.
The right hon. Gentleman is contemplating creating the Tory rip-off of the century by causing the new towns to hand over their assets to him. He is sacking the majority of Socialist nominees on new town boards and putting in Tory hacks to do his dirty work. We shall examine the new appointments that are shortly to be made. The policy of successive Governments has been to maintain a political balance on the new town boards. If that balance is maintained as in the past, the Socialist nominees, bearing in mind that subsection (3) has been deleted by Parliament, will ignore the right hon. Gentleman's diktat issued in the course of attempting to hive off their assets. His demands are not based on good business practice or common sense, nor are they in the interests of the corporations, which through successive Governments have done a magnificent job in managing their assets on behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers.
No one but a lunatic—there appear to be lunatics on the Government Front Bench at present—would be prepared in the present climate to instruct new town corporations to put on the market many millions of pounds worth of valuable assets—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the terms of the debate. The House is discussing whether it should leave out subsection (3). That is all that we are concerned about in the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the deletion of subsection (3) changes fundamentally the nature of clause 114. The Minister, in his brief and cursory introduction of the amendment, did not face the implications of the Government's defeat in another place. Clause 114 has been fundamentally changed. The Secretary of State is taking powers to direct the development corporations and the commission to pay assets to him. He does not have to stipulate how he has arrived at his decision. He merely makes demands. If subsection (3) is deleted, he will not be able to enforce his decision. That completely changes clause 114.
The Labour Party recognises that the Government have been defeated. How do the Government propose to enforce the Secretary of State's diktats. The Secretary of State may try to instruct the new town development corporations or the commission to hand over assets despite the fact that he has no power to do so. How will he enforce those demands? That is an extremely important point. It is nice to see that the democratic process can work.
It was interesting to be told that this amendment was not fundamental. I have shown that it is fundamental. I do not wish to go wider than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you might rule me out of order. On report, we pointed out that many new towns in which there was a mixture of new town capital and private capital would experience difficulties. The Minister will recall that in Warrington—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debate on whether subsection (3) should be deleted. The amendment would remove the Minister's power to claim the money.


The hon. Gentleman should direct his mind to that.

Mr. Evans: I accept that. May I again point out that as a result of the deletion [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I shall gladly accept whatever directions you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may give me. If any Conservative Member thinks that I shall accept directions that a Tory tries to give me, he will find he has a difficult fight on his hands. Under no circumstances will I accept any direction from a Conservative Member. Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall accept your direction.
This provision is of fundamental importance to thousands of my constituents. They will see the Government rip off something that they have built up over the years. Far from being an abuse of the House, it would be a negation of my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament if I did not raise this basic issue. Clause 114 is a rip-off.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on the right road and he should continue the argument. Once subsection (3) has been deleted, there will be no definition of "the debt" in subsection (4). Subsection (3) determines the "simple contract debt". Once that is removed, the word "debt" has no meaning. Therefore, my hon. Friend is making a good point and should continue.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. With his usual perspicacity he has put his finger on the important point. My hon. Friend has made a better point in a few brief words than I could have made in more words. I hone that the Minister will not try to cover up the Government's defeat, or the humiliation that the Secretary of State has had to suffer once again as a result of his arrogant arrogation of powers that he does not possess. [hon. Members: "Rubbish".] "Arrogant" is the correct word to use when describing the Secretary of State.

Mr. Graham: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). He speaks from experience of new towns and knows the effect that the measure will have on his constituents. Conservative Members are entitled to disagree with his views. However, the Government constantly seek to have it both ways. At all stages of the

Bill the Government said that subsection (3) was vital. Attempts to remove it were resisted time after time. In the other place that subsection was rejected and the Government recognised that they had a fight on their hands. They also at that time lost another amendment concerning new towns. The Government had to make a political decision. It was not a democratic decision. They had to calculate finely their chances of getting away with as much as they could.
The Minister now says that the Bill can work without subsection (3). Why, then, was it put in the Bill in the first place? Is anything that is defeated in the other place ipso facto seen by the Government as superfluous to their requirements? They should have the grace to acknowledge, as has been the case more than once today, that they have been beaten by argument. On political reflection they have decided that discretion is the better part of valour. The Government have been wise to acknowledge their defeat in another place.
My hon. Friend is right. Before we approve an amendment from another place, we are entitled to view the disembowelled clause. It is proper to reflect on the Bill and clause, as amended.
We shall continue to maintain, whatever arithmetic or argument may be put forward by the Government, that such measures are part of a fundamental attack by the Government on the concept of the future funding of capital and development of the new towns. The noble Lords share that view. The Government received the greatest mauling over this part of the Bill in another place. What has been the Government's change in attitude in their concept of towns? Merely a willingness to consult a little more with some of those affected.
In another place it is possible even on Third Reading to move amendments. Lord Mishcon, as late as last week, attempted to introduce an amendment to the clause that would have given a veneer of rationality to the Governments protestations that they have the best interests of new towns at heart. He merely tried to ensure that whenever the Government activate clause 114 and demand £ 100 million or £200 million, before the Secretary of State asks for


that money he should have due regard to the planned programme of development of the new towns. Even that persuasive advocate was unable to convince Lord Bellwin. The amendment would have given a veneer of respectability to the charade that the Government are advancing as a justification for denuding new towns of future capital.
We have not argued that it is wrong to sell assets in new towns and to use the money for other new town purposes. The Government maintained in Committee that there were better uses of public money, on occasions, than spending it in new towns. I remember the Minister saving that there would be nothing wrong in the money raised from the sale of new town assets coming into the public exchequer and being recycled into, for example, the purchase of kidney machines. We certainly see a need for increasing public expenditure on the provision of kidney machines, but we fail to see the argument for placing the future of new towns in jeopardy.
12 midnight.
I want the Under-Secretary, in his reply, to pay special attention to the growing concern and anxiety in the new towns. He and the Government have failed miserably to have accepted by the new town corporations and the commision the basis on which the Secretary of State has decided to milk new towns of their money. I want the Under-Secretary to refer particularly to the future. We know that what the Government want to do in 1980 and 1981 could be widened in future.
I want the hon. Gentleman to look at the future of, for instance, the third-generation new towns. There is great concern about when the Secretary of State is likely to turn his avaricious eyes to the third-generation towns. The Government must understand that the maturity aspect in the development of assets is important. It is criminal folly to sell an asset before the full realisation of the value and benefit of that asset has been enjoyed by the new town.
Let me give examples from a third-generation new town to illustrate the need to allow assets to mature for a number of years before the Secretary of State should even consider ordering that they should be sold. In the new town that I have in

mind, a 10,000 sq ft advance factory site was let in 1971 at 50p per sq ft per year. By 1976, the rent had increased to £1 and in 1980 it was £1·80. The yearly rental for a one-acre industrial site was £1,000 in 1971. By 1976 it was £2,000 and this year it is £4,000. In the same new town, city centre offices were let in 1971 at a square foot yearly rental of £1·25. In 1976, the rent was £2·75 and in 1980 it is £4·50.
Those examples illustrate that it is important that the Minister takes this last opportunity to reassure those who have an interest in new towns—professional or otherwise—that it is not his intention progressively to turn on the third-generation new towns and make them pay up as the others will have to. The cases that I have outlined illustrate the wisdom of allowing the benefits of public investment to mature and that, as Labour Members have said time and again, it is folly needlessly to denude the new towns of the assets that they have built up.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I represent a third-generation new town. I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Evans) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). My constituents would have great difficulty in recognising themselves in those speeches. They do not share the anxiety expressed by those hon. Members. The claims about the lurid effects of the amendment are hard to understand. The effect on my constituents must be the same, but they do not have the same anxiety. My local development corporation would not dream of refusing to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State to save money. The Opposition's arguments are specious.

Mr. Fox: With the permission of the House, I shall reply.
The House will not expect me to make a speech similar to that which I made on report when I defended our new towns policy. I did it so effectively that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley), who accused the Secretary of State of behaving irresponsibly and illegally, disappeared without trace. On that occasion I showed that all that we have done is within the law. In our determination to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement the Secretary of State asked the new towns to


reduce their net call on the Exchequer by about £100 million. They adhered to that request.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) should examine his new town carefully. Warrington has agreed to the request to realise some assets and is doing well in selling them. In case he thinks that we have taken over the development corporation, I remind him that since we came to power we have not had the opportunity to appoint many new people. I know of no Conservative additions to that corporation. His own friends are accepting our sensible policy.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggested that we had suffered a massive defeat in the House of Lords. I must disillusion him—and that is a pity because he is such a nice chap. I should like him to leave with some satisfaction. The amendment makes it that much harder for us to enforce repayments. It is a legal matter, and we can recover, as we can from anyone else. The amendment does not defeat our intention. It shows how sensible we can be. When we know that we can achieve our aim we are always happy to accept alternative methods.

Mr. John Evans: How will the Secretary of State recover an ordered sum from a new town corporation if it refuses to pay it?

Mr. Fox: That is a hypothetical question. No new town corporation would get in such a situation. Such bodies have legal obligations, and it would be possible for my Department to recover whatever money necessary under the law. It would be a simple matter of enforcement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117

EFFECT OF ORDER: GENERAL

Lords amendment: No. 101, in page 99, line 34, leave out "transitionals" and insert "transitional provisions"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 102.

Mr. Fox: These are drafting amendments. They improve the language of the Bill and do not seriously alter the meaning.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 102 agreed to.

Clause 120

POWER TO END SPECIAL LICENSING PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 101, line 39, leave out subsection (7).

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment that removes a definition that is already provided in clause 121.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121

INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 102, line 15, leave out "118" and insert "120".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is another technical amendment to clause 121, which relates to the extent of the application of Part XV to Scotland. It is needed as a consequence of the addition to Part XV on Report of two clauses applying to England and Wales only.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 122

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 102, line 20, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (1A) below,

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 106.

Mr. King: There was criticism in the House and in another place about the great width of, or the lack of any control


over, the scope of areas where urban development corporations might be established. Because of their very nature as urban development corporations, we are anxious to introduce an amendment to limit that. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 make clear the classes of authority within which it would be possible to have an urban development corporation. At the same time, I must make it clear to the House, as I have done before, that we intend to have only two, and they are in Docklands, in London and the South docks, on Merseyside.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the Government's recognition that when it left the House the clause was framed in far too wide a manner. When the Bill was last before us the Secretary of State could designate if he
is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so … any area of land as an urban development area.
As I and a number of other Members pointed out, that was wide enough to cover a rural village or the City of London.
If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State may designate only an area that is either a metropolitan district, or an inner London borough, or partly an inner London borough and partly an outer London borough that has a boundary common with the other London borough, and subject to another amendment that enables separate parcels of land to be designated as one urban development area.
Any restriction on the powers of the Secretary of State in the clause as originally drafted is to be welcomed. Whatever the Government's intentions, the clause is widely drawn. It still applies in any of the areas to which we now refer if the Secretary of State
is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so.
He can designate an urban development area in the limited number of local authorities now referred to in the amendment.
That restriction is on an arbitrary base. A legislative assembly should know what powers it is giving to a Secretary of State as well as what he intends to do with them because Secretaries of State and Governments change from time to time.

The Secretary of State can now designate an urban development area in Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Salford, Manchester, Oldham, Trafford, Stockport, Tameside, Sefton, Liverpool, St. Helens, Moseley, The Wirral, Barnsley, Doncaster Sheffield, Rotherham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North Tyneside, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry, Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. I am sure that many people do not know that this power still extends in metropolitan districts outside the areas about which we have talked.
12.15 am
There are now excluded by the amendment, for example, Bristol, Cardiff, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Stoke and Southampton. So what we are solemnly doing tonight by approving the amendment is to say that while there may be an urban development corporation in Calderdale there may not be one in Cardiff; in Dudley, but not in Leicester; in Barnsley, but not in Bristol; in North Tyneside, but not in Nottingham; in Kirklees, but not in Stoke: and in Sandwell, but not in Southampton; although we know that it can come in the inner London boroughs. There may be an urban development corporation in the City of Westminster, but not exclusively in Newham. There may be one in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but not exclusively in Haringey; and there may be one in Greenwich, but not exclusively in Brent or Waltham Forest.
We are well aware that the fact that this arbitrary list exists has nothing to do with the regeneration of the areas concerned. As the Minister told the Committee considering the Bill in the House of Lords,
Basically the intention here … is to avoid the hybridity point while at the same time trying to give more details."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1192.]
We know what the hybridity point is, and I think that we must accept that technically the Government have succeeded in dealing with it. We may congratulate them upon that. But we are still very close to the definition of a Hybrid Bill, given by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster as
a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the


private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."—[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]
Accepting that the Government have achieved the objective of escaping hybridity, technically, I must say that the Bill nevertheless, on the face of it, clearly affects the private interests of certain local authorities and certain local authority electors in a manner different from other local authorities and other local authority electors.
Whether or not the amendment escapes the hybridity point, I believe that it is not a sound principle that the scope of any enactment should depend on the need to manipulate the peculiarities of parliamentary procedure rather than upon the circumstances of what is called for in the legislation. I am still of the opinion that in principle the restrictions on the power are not severe enough.
When the Bill was last before the House, I could say that it would be possible for a Labour Government to designate the City of London as an urban development corporation area—quite clearly, on the principle and criteria laid down in the Bill—and that they could do it after a one-and-a-half-hour debate in this House. There would be the special procedure in the House of Lords, but if that House were abolished that would not apply.
The City of London is saved, and I am grateful for that, but we must face that fact that under the Bill as it now stands the City of Westminster and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea will still be—though I know that this is not the Government's intention—in a position in which they should not have found themselves.

Mr. Spearing: It is typical of the proceedings on the Bill that it was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who, in the early part of his speach, spelt out the intention of the amendment. I know that in the Official Report the amendment is printed at the top of the report of the debate on it, but simply from hearing or reading the Minister's words one would not know what the amendment did. That has to some extent illustrated the Government's attitude to the House—and previously to the Committee—on this matter.
Since the last stage of the Bill there has been a further memorandum from

the Government indicating their expectations in terms of a designation order. They have not extended it to the City of London, but the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham might like to know that the Government have indicated their intention of including land on the opposite side of the river, known as Hay's Wharf, leading towards London Bridge and a little beyond. Therefore, although it does not reach the City of London, it is getting near to it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the vexed question of hybridity. I think that he is probably right that the change in the Bill, which designates only certain parts of the country, does not make it hybrid. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to refer to the procedure in the House of Lords, and it is to that that I wish to draw the attention of the House, and in particular the Minister.
In Committee, when dealing with the protection of councils and electors, the Minister made it clear that protection from abuse in this matter would come
from the procedure which has to be followed. As the hon. Member rightly said, the Bill is of general application. Part XVI is not in any sense hybrid, but a designation order clearly would be. That being the case, quite different matters then apply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 May 1980; c. 741].
The Minister made the point that when a designation, establishment or vesting order is made in another place, under its procedure, but not under ours, it will be possible, given certain circumstances certified by the Chairman of the committee on hybrid instruments, for the order arising from the Bill to be taken as a Private Bill would be taken in another place and the petitioners' rights would therefore be ensured. The House passed that part of the Bill on that understanding.
Will the Minister assure the House that if the amendment, which more closely defines the area to which an order may relate, is passed, the Government will not in any future proceedings instruct anybody who may appear for them to resist any petition on the ground that the House has decided that if the Secretary of States decides that it is in the national interest, inner London or anywhere in the inner London area can be designated as an urban development area? If the Minister has no intention


of using this power, I am sure that he will say so. If he does not understand the point that I am making, perhaps he will also say so.
I am sure that the Minister, recalling what he said in Committee, will agree that it is important that the amendment, which I am not necessarily opposing, should have no deleterious effects on the rights of those who may wish to petition in another place and reduce what would otherwise be their opportunities in the Bill as it stands.
I hope that the Minister has grasped and will reply to this point, because he has already made known to local authorities and to Members such as myself that it is his intention to lay in both Houses of Parliament, not one order, but three orders: a designation order outlining the area to which an urban development designation will apply; the establishment of an urban development corporation; and an order vesting, I take it by compulsory purchase, the first areas to be given into the ownership of the urban development corporation.
I hope that in reply to the general debate the Minister will given the assurance for which I have asked.

Mr. King: I listened with interest to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I noted his caveats. Nevertheless, I assume that he welcomes this amendment and wishes to see these areas restricted, even if the amendment does not go as far as he wants. I was interested particularly in his comments on the hybridity point. He is correct, of course.
I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that my comments in Committee could not in any case anticipate the judgment of their Lordships' House, because it is not the function of Ministers to determine these matters. I do not want that to sound as though I am seeking to qualify what I said, but that is the protocol in such matters.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. My understanding is that this amendment, which is not hybrid, merely defines classes of authority that will be affected. When it

comes to the laying of individual orders, it will select from those classes individual authorities or areas to be affected. Without seeking to anticipate the judgment of their Lordships on this matter, my understanding is that it in no way prejudices the position of petitioners.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Subsection (1A)(b) refers to an area in an inner London borough or partly in an inner London borough. Is the Minister aware that, under the London Government Act 1963, the City of London is deemed to be a London borough, and I cannot understand how it has escaped. It is and has remained, in subsequent legislation, described as a London borough. Why is it now asserted that it has escaped? I do not see how it can escape.

Mr. King: Under the relevant piece of legislation, the City of London is not an inner London borough. It is a technical point, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it, but that is my understanding, and that is why the amendment excludes the City of London.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 106 agreed to.

Clause 125

EXCLUSION OF FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 107, in page 104, line 12, leave out
are exercisable by urban development corporations
and insert—
may be exercisable by an urban development corporation

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 108.

Mr. King: These are two technical amendments about the laying of orders if it is necessary to modify the functions of a UDC. Without the amendments, it would be necessary to make a fresh constitution order under clause 123 and provide a completely new set of functions. This enables a mere amendment to be made. It does not cut out the normal


procedures. The order would still have to be laid, and it would still have to go through the usual procedures in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 108 agreed to.

New Clause M

CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 109, after clause 127, in page 105, line 32, at end insert—
M.—(1) An urban development corporation shall prepare a code of practice as to consultation with the relevant local authorities about the exercise of its powers.
(2) In this section "the relevant local authorities" means local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area.
(3) Preparation of the code shall be completed not later than the expiration of the period of 12 months from the date of the establishment of the corporation.
(4) A corporation may from time to time revise the whole or any part of its code.
(5) A corporation shall prepare and revise its code in consultation with the relevant local authorities.".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add—
(6) Any such code of practice shall make specific provision for consultation relating to Orders vesting in an Urban Development Corporation land vested in a local authority.'.
The Lords amendment is a new clause which purports to provide a statutory requirement for consultation by the urban development corporation with the local authorities in whose area it is placed.
My criticism of almost every subsection of the new clause is that there are virtually no teeth. Subsection (1) says merely that a UDC shall prepare a code of practice relating to consultation. There is no two-way conversation. It is entirely within the orbit and hands of the urban development corporation. Subsection (2) gives the definition of the local authorities, and subsection (3) gives a 12-month time limit in order to prepare the code of practice.
I find that surprising because one of the Government's justifications for setting up urban development corporations is that

they will speed up the process. If it takes 12 months to complete a code of practice and consultation, there will be a slowdown in procedure. But I take it that this is a long-stop provision, and that it may not take that long. Under subsection (4) the corporation may unilaterally
revise the whole or any part of its code.
One assumes that if any part of it was not to its liking it could suddenly change it. That again is a one-sided provision.
Paragraph (5) provides that the local authorities must be consulted if a change is made. But the local authorities do not have to consent. Labour Members believe that this is a weak provision. It does not give any real power to the local authorities other than statutory consultation. The rules are made entirely by one side. It is like one side going in to bat in cricket and changing the rules as the game progresses if they so wish. It is as strong or as weak as that.
12.30 am
However, if the Government are to have some sort of code of consultation, it is advisable for the House to ensure that there will be a provision in the code on at least one issue. This amendment seeks to ensure that where an order is placed before the House for a compulsory purchase vesting the code of practice will take account of it. We believe that there should be specific provision for that. The amendment states:
Any such code of practice shall make specific provision for consultation relating to Orders vesting in an Urban Development Corporation land vested in a local authority.
In other words, there should be specific provision in the code of practice for proper consultation when the urban development corporation wishes to take over land by compulsory purchase, in this case through the action of the Secretary of State. It is a modest amendment to a very weak provision, but we feel that it would justify a place in the code.
On the general question of consultation, I should like to put a point to the Minister that has arisen in the consultations relating to the Bill, and it is relevant to the code of practice that may arise as a result of this Lords amendment. It concerns an important matter relating to planning. When the Minister sent out his


original consultation document, he stated that planning powers
would be a reserve power to be activated as necessary under which the urban development corporation would have planning powers in respect of all the proposals in its area.
But in the other place, on 14 October, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in resisting an amendment moved by Lord Evans of Claughton, said that these were
powers which we consider to be essential for a UDC to have, bearing in mind the nature of the buildings and the land in the dockland areas. If a UDC is to be an effective agency it will need all the powers in the present Bill, and I therefore have to resist these amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1255]
In other words, even in the consultation processes in relation to the Bill there seems to be some change of mind on the part of the Government on the important matter of planning.
If the Government can make a change of such a nature in the consultative processes prior to legislation, I shudder to think what may happen in consultation, even with this rather weak code. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on the matter, of which I have given him some prior notice, because it is relevant to consultation.
Lord Bellwin, throughout the proceedings in Committee in another place, constantly said that the success of the operation would depend on the co-operation of local authorities. There can, of course, be no co-operation if there is not proper and genuine consultation.
Here we have a position in which the Secretary of State—I am glad that he is in the Chamber for this part of the proceedings—is to take away from local authorities the proper powers that they have exercised in this area for over a century. They are unwilling to have the powers taken from them. They may even petition another place in order to stop him doing it. He is taking away very considerable powers, including those of planning, and then he says "We are going to ask you to do certain things and to co-operate with the urban development corporation, and we shall consult with you just before you do it."
I do not believe that that will result in the sort of accelerated pace of development

that the Minister says he wants to see and by which he is justifying the urban development corporation. I therefore feel that the code will be only a bit of a figleaf. Let us put another little bit on it in regard to compulsory purchase if the Minister has it in mind to accept the amendment.

Mr. King: Amendment No. 109 was tabled by the Government in response to representations from the Opposition about the need for proper consultation. I hope that if it is not entirely what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wanted he will be pleased that we have fulfilled an undertaking that we gave when we suggested originally that perhaps it was not necessary because we were insistent that there would be consultation. But the hon. Gentleman was anxious that it should be written into the Bill, and the Government have honoured the undertaking that they gave to the Committee at that time. So the new clause M should be seen in that light, as a response to representations from each side of the House.
We do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposal to add a further specific provision about consultations is a wise one. We have made it clear that the vesting order will have to go through the same procedures in any case. There will have to be, quite clearly, the opportunity for discussions on it. But because of the need for the time scale in the Lords amendment that I recommend the House to accept, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be helpful.
I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Member, but I sense that he is still battling away in some old campaign. I am not sure that he is quite clear about what is happening in reality. He gives the impression that everybody is at loggerheads and that nobody can talk to anybody about this matter. I am pleased to say that, while we have in the legislation included the 12-months provision for the discussion on the code of practice for consultation, I understand that the Merseyside UDC has almost completed the draft in its discussions with the local authorities, and that the London Docklands UDC is also well advanced in its discussions. I think that people recognise as I made clear to the Committee, that


the UDC will not work if it is immediately to be at loggerheads with all the local authorities in its area. It has to co-operate. That is obviously and clearly understood by the chairmen and the deputy chairmen of the respective shadow organisations, who recognise the importance of working closely with the local authorities.
The hon. Member raised what he thought was an inconsistency in the Government's position from the original consultation paper in which we talked about reserve planning powers, and the statement by my noble Friend Lord Strathcona, who answered the debate, in which he made it clear that we now intended to activate these planning powers. It is true. It is not inconsistent. It is the point of consultation. We went out to consultation on the basis that we envisaged that these would be reserve powers. As a result of the consultation, discussions and consideration of the representations made, we took the view that it was right that these powers should be activated.
Therefore, this is not inconsistent. There are many occasions on which, after consultation, the Government take a specific view. We have not introduced a power that we did not mention. We thought that it would be a reserve power; we now propose to activate it.

Mr. Spearing: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the procedure caught me on the hop, because I thought that the Lords amendment was to be moved first and then I would move the amendment to it. The Minister and I have both spoken to the Lords amendment and the amendment that I have moved.
I take the Minister's point about working together. I am sorry that that was not thought about when the borough council leaders first met the Secretary of State, when he told them what would happen.
On consultation, the Minister has just said that the Government originally, in their consultation paper, saw planning powers for the UDC as a reserve power, and that as a result of consultations the Government had had a change of mind, as they are entitled to do, subsequent to consultation, and Lord Strathcona made it clear in another place that that was so.
It may be that the Minister also made that clear in Committee or on Report. If he did, I confess that I have forgotten it. Perhaps he will let me know in correspondence or in another way whether it was intimated to the House. As he rightly said, throughout the Committee stage consultation was requested, and that it should be a statutory obligation was requested. But the Minister now says that the Government are firmly on the course of making it a parallel power. I think that that makes my amendment even more relevant, because not only will the UDC have the power of compulsory purchase, but apparently it will be able to give itself planning permission as well. That is doing exactly what we said in Committee the UDC has been set up to do. It is there to increase the value of the land subsequent to purchase. It will be a statutory machine set up for that very objective.
In those circumstances, I am surprised that the Minister has not been more sympathetic to my amendment. It is one thing for the UDC to acquire land compulsorily from a private person or a private body. There are, or there might be, protections against that, in the normal course of events, where a local authority purchases land compulsorily. But in an urban development corporation we have a centrally located, centrally established Whitehall body, accountable only to the Secretary of State, which is compulsorily to purchase land from the local authorities in my constituency, in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and, conceivably, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
12.45 am
The local authority will not be able to do anything about such action. Subsequently, that land having been purchased, the urban development corporation can give itself planning permission to do what it likes. The combination of those powers gives it a considerable weapon. The Minister has said that there will be a code of conduct for consultation. I say "Right, include in that code consultation concerning compulsory purchase." If the Minister really wants to see things moving in dockland, would it not be much better for the local authority


to go ahead with some agreed development rather than for the urban development corporation to have to do it?
There are large areas of land in my constituency owned by the London borough of Newham. We have the Beck-ton district plan, which has not yet been changed, and I hope that it will not be changed. This Bill and this provision will enable the urban development corporation compulsorily to purchase any land it likes, particularly land which we have assigned to open spaces, now being set out for playing fields and public open space in a good, landscaped manner.
What the Minister is saying is "I will not make it statutorily necessary for the urban development corporation even to

Question accordingly negatived.

consult the local authority before it slaps a CPO on the land." That is what the Minister is saying to me tonight, to the ratepayers in my constituency and in the other boroughs. The Minister shakes his head. I should be glad to give way and allow him to intervene. He does not do so. Therefore, I take it that he accepts what I say. That is why I am asking my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, or perhaps elsewhere, to join me in pressing my amendment on consultation concerning land which is to be purchased compulsorily from a local authority.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 123.

Division No. 497]
AYES
[12.50 am


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)



Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.




NOES


Ancram, Michael
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Newton, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Best, Keith
Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Blackburn, John
Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom
Raison, Timothy


Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bulmer, Esmond
King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butcher, John
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Cope, John
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cranborne, Viscount
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thompson, Donald


Crouch, David
Major, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Darrell, Stephen
Marlow, Tony
Wakeham, John


Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol
Waller, Gary


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ward, John


Egger, Tim
Mellor, David
Warren, Kenneth


Emery, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moate, Roger
Whitney, Raymond


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wickendon, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wolfson, Mark


Fox, Marcus
Murphy, Christopher
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Myles, David



Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neale, Gerrard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Needham, Richard
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. David Waddington.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 128

VESTING BY ORDER IN CORPORATION

Lords amendment: No. 110, in page 105, line 37, at end insert ", statutory undertakers".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 111, 216, 225 and 227.

Mr. King: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the arrangements regarding the vesting of land and to make sure that they comply with the correct arrangements under the Town and Country Planning Acts and the Land Compensation Acts in Scotland. They are technical amendments and do not involve great issues of policy. Unless the House would like further clarification, I ask that the amendments be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 111 agreed to.

New Clause N

LAND COMPENSATION

Lords amendment: No. 112, after clause 131, in page 108, line 36, at the end insert—


"N.—(1) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 (descriptions of actual or prospective development of which account is not to be taken in assessing compensation or the effect of which is to reduce compensation payable in respect of adjacent land in the same ownership which has benefited by the development) and after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (which makes similar provision for Scotland):—



"4A. Where any of the relevant land forms part of an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 114 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.



Development of any land other than the relevant land, in the course of the development or redevelopment of that






area or as an urban development area."


(2) At the end of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 there shall be added:—

"PART III

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

10. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared—

(a) that, in assessing in the circumstances described in paragraph 4A in the first column of Part I of this Schedule the increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 6 of this Act, no increase or diminution in value is to be excluded from being left out of account; and
(b) that, in assessing in those circumstances the increase in value to be taken into account by virtue of section 7 of this Act, no increase in value is to be excluded from being taken into account merely because it is attributable—

(i) to any development of land which was carried out before the area was designated as an urban development area;
(ii) to any development or prospect of development of land outside the urban development area;
(iii) to any development or prospect of development of land by an authority other than the acquiring authority, possessing compulsory purchase powers.

11. Paragraph 10 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of any rule of law relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as it has effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 6 of this Act.".

(3) In section 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), for "4" substitute "4A"; and
(b) add at the end of subsection (2) the words "and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall have effect with regard to paragraph 4A".

(4) At the end of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 there shall be added:—

"PART III

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

6. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared—

(a) that, in assessing in the circumstances described in paragraph 4A in the first column of Part I of this Schedule the increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 13 of this Act no increase or diminution of value is to be excluded from being left out of account; and


(b) that, in assessing in those circumstances the increase in value to be taken into account by virtue of section 14 of this Act, no increase in value is to be excluded from being taken into account,

merely because it is attributable—

(i) to any development of land which was carried out before the area was designated as an urban development area;
(ii) to any development or prospect of development of land outside the urban development area;
(iii) to any development or prospect of development of land by an authority, other than the acquiring authority, possessing compulsory purchase powers.

7. Paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of any rule relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as it has effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 13 of this Act.".

(5) In section 13 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), for "4", where it first occurs, substitute "4A"; and
(b) add at the end of subsection (2A) the words "and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall have effect with regard to paragraph 4A".".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment deals with the compensation arrangements and adds a new case to schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 along the lines of that land down for the new towns. It brings the matter into line with existing legislation.

1 am

Mr. Spearing: The Government are shovelling upon the House vast quantities of legislation. The amendment is only two and a half pages worth. I can understand the Minister when he says that it is necessary to fulfil some of the Bill's objectives. I understand that some parts of the amendment follow consultation with the local authorities. However, the amendment does not fulfil all that some authorities would require.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to deal with the compensation payable to persons on compulsory acquition of land by an urban development corporation. The present basis of compensation is that when land is purchased by a public body the purchase price does not include betterment that

has been achieved by some form of investment by the authority. The land is acquired at a value that assumes that betterment has not occurred. That is what I understand to be the purport of the amendment. It brings into line in a complex way an urban development corporation with an existing local authority.
As we have learnt from the previous debate, in some circumstances one public authority so-called—the urban development corporation—will be compulsorily purchasing from another public authority, usually a borough council. I suggest to the Minister that in some circumstances the borough council will have invested money and will have contributed to the betterment of the land. In those circumstances, I am not certain whether the general rules apply. I understand that the amendment does not cover fully that set of circumstances.
An amendment was tabled that provided that the new clause would not apply to land that is compulsorily purchased by an urban development corporation from a borough council where the council has been responsible through investment for betterment in that land. That amendment has not been selected, and I understand why. It is extremely difficult in a precise and short form to devise an amendment that offers a satisfactory and equitable solution. It is always difficult to know how much investment has caused how much betterment. Usually, if there is a dispute, the Lands Tribunal considers these matters.
I suggest that the Lords amendment as it stands may not cover the point that I have raised. Local authorities could feel aggrieved, and aggrieved local authorities are the last things that the Minister says that he wants, although the Bill will not help them to feel contented in any respect.

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will accept the general purpose of the amendment. It is generally accepted that, where public money has been spent, any compensation excludes the value effect of development from that public money.
Although the amendment to the amendment was not selected, I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance which I think he will find helpful. Where the UDCs acquire land from other public


authorities that have incurred higher expenditure than would be reflected in the compensation payable, there are established procedures for applying administrative discretion to achieve a balance of equity. If necessary, the Secretary of State could use his powers of direction to achieve that. I hope that that assurance will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

PLANNING BLIGHT

Lords amendment: No. 113, after clause 132, in page 109, line 29, at end insert—
O.—(1) Section 192(1) of the 1971 Act ("scope of provisions about blight) and section 181(1) of the 1972 Act (which makes similar provisions for Scotland) shall have effect as if the land specified in them included land which—

(a) is land within an area intended to be designated as an urban development area by an order which has been made under section 122 above but which has not come into effect; or
(b) is land within an area which has been so designated by an order under that section which has come into effect.

(2) No blight notice shall be served by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above at any time after the order has come into effect.
(3) Until such time as an urban development corporation is established for the urban development area, sections 192 to 207 of the 1971 Act and sections 181 to 196 of the 1972 Act shall have effect in relation to land within subsection (1) above as if "the appropriate authority" and "the appropriate enactment" were the Secretary of State and subsection (4) below respectively.
(4) Until such time as aforesaid the Secretary of State shall have power to acquire compulsorily any interest in land in pursuance of a blight notice served by virtue of subsection (1) above; and where he acquires an interest as aforesaid, then—

(a) if the land is or becomes land within subsection (1)(b) above, the interest shall be transferred by him to the urban development corporation established for the urban development area; and
(b) in any other case, the interest may be disposed of by him in such manner as he thinks fit.

(5) The Land Compensation Act 1961 and, in relation to Scotland, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 shall have effect in relation to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of an interest by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above as if the acquisition were by an urban development corporation under this Part of this Act and as if, in the case of land within subsection (1)(a) above, the land formed part of the area designated

as an urban development area by an order under section 122 above which has come into effect.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this new clause is to protect land and building owners who are affected by blight as a result of the prospect of the designation of an urban development area, or the proposals made by an urban development corporation once the urban development area has been designated. I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 134

CORPORATION AS PLANNING AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 111, line 24, at end insert—
(4A) In relation to an urban development corporation which is the local planning authority by virtue of an order under subsection (1) above, section 270 of the 1971 Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) shall have effect for the purposes of Part III of the 1971 Act prescribed by that order, and in relation to the kinds of development so prescribed, as if—

(a) in subsection (1), the reference to the development by local authorities of land in respect of which they are the local planning authorities included a reference to the development by the corporation of land in respect of which it is the local planning authority;
(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a) the words "the corporation" were substituted for the words "such an authority" and the word "corporation" were substituted for the words "local planning authority"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b) the word "corporation" were substituted for the words "local planning authority"."

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 115.

Mr. Fox: Amendment No. 114 clears up an anomaly in the Bill, whereby an urban development corporation cannot, under the present provisions, have recourse to the power under section 270 of the Town and Country Planning Act


1971 available to a local authority acting as a local planning authority. The amendment will enable an urban development corporation similarly to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land in respect of which it is made a local planning authority by order under clause 134(1).
Amendment No. 115 will enable an urban development corporation in Scotland to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land for which it is made the planning authority under clause 143(5).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 115 agreed to.

New Clause P

PLANNING: CORPORATION AND LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 116, after clause 134, in page 112, line 26, at end insert—
P.—(1) The reference to the local planning authority in paragraph 17 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (duty to include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by the local planning authority of planning permission for certain descriptions of development) shall not be construed as including a reference to an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority by virtue of an order under section 134 above, and no provision of a development order which is included in it by virtue of that paragraph is to be construed as applying to such a corporation.
(2) The Secretary of State may include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority of planning permission under the 1971 Act for such descriptions of development as may be specified in the order.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment introduces a new clause which would enable the Secretary of State to limit the powers of restriction by the local highway authority over an urban development corporation acting as a local planning authority to those kinds of development that are specified in a development order.

Mr. Spearing: During the consultative process, I understood that there was to be no exemption for the urban development corporation. If that is so, will the Minister tell us why the Government have changed their mind? They have every right to change their mind, but we should like to know why.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is right. I should make plain that the Government accept that highway safeguards are important in urban development areas. However, the central position of the urban development corporation, and the process of renewal that it will carry forward, means that the local highway authority's power should be tailored more precisely to the circumstances of an urban development authority. We have thought about the matter carefully, and believe that this is the only way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 135

BUILDING CONTROL

Lords amendment: No. 117, in page 112, line 36, leave out
functions exercisable in a case where subsection (4) below applies,
and insert
other than inner London boroughs, functions

Page 112, line 40, at end insert—
( ) as regards inner London boroughs, functions exercisable under the London building legislation or, as the case may be, under or in connection with building regulations and any enactment relating to such regulations;

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121.

Mr. Fox: These amendments introduce additional flexibility in the event of an order being made transferring building control functions to an urban development corporation by enabling the London urban development corporation to exercise either the London or the national system, as appropriate.

Mr. Spearing: Again, perhaps the Minister will be more explicit. I am sure


that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that in Committee an amendment was proposed making the London building regulations applicable inside the urban development corporation area. That may still be the case. However, the urban development corporation would be responsible for administration, and not the Greater London Council. When this amendment was moved in the other place on 14 October, there was no explanation or debate. Hon. Members may refer to col. 1259 of the Official Report of the House of Lords to verify that fact.
This is, therefore, the first time that such a point has been raised. Will the Minister give an assurance that his flexibility applies not to the regulations, but only to the authority which is operation?

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman has a long recollection and is right. We were simply leaving our options open. It may be that the London system is the best. I again give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121 agreed to.

New Clause Q

FIRE PRECAUTIONS AND HOMES INSULATION

Lords amendment: No. 122, after clause 135, in page 114, line 11, insert—
 Q.—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section directing that, subject to the provisions of the order, an urban development corporation shall have in its area (or in such part of its area as may be specified in the order)—

(a) the functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971;
(b) the power of a local authority under section 36 of that Act (power to make loans to meet expenditure on certain alterations to buildings occasioned by the Act); and
(c) the functions of a local authority under any scheme made by virtue of section 1 of the Homes Insulation Act 1978 (schemes for the making of grants towards the cost of works undertaken to improve the thermal insulation of dwellings).

(2) On the order coming into force, the corporation shall have the functions conferred in relation to the area (or part) instead of or concurrently with any such authority, depending on the terms of the order.
(3) The order may provide that any enactment under which the corporation is to exercise

functions by virtue of the order shall have effect in relation to the corporation and, where the corporation is to have any function concurrently with another authority, in relation to that authority, as modified by the order.
(4) The order shall have effect subject to such savings and transitional and supplementary provisions as may be specified in the order.
(5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(6) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 129.

Mr. King: Clause 136 gives power for the UDC to be a housing authority. The amendments are technical. They bring the UDC's powers, if it were to be a housing authority, into line with the full powers that it would need over such matters as issuing fire certificates. I hasten to add that we are not concerned with giving powers to run a fire fighting service. This misapprehension caused excitement in another place. The clause has nothing to do with that. It concerns the UDC's powers as a housing authority.
I should like to make clear that we have no present intention of transferring housing powers to the UDC. If it is at a later date felt desirable that such powers should be transferred, it is clearly essential that they should be up to date.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister owes the House a fuller explanation. I am not yet convinced that the amendment is purely technical. He says that there is the possibility of the UDC being a housing authority. We have discussed that issue. Improvements and other such matters would be involved. In subsection (a) the amendment includes:
the functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971".
That opens up enormous potential. The functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 concern mainly the issue of fire certificates relating to the standards of buildings and of escape. Section 6 (2) states:
A fire certificate issued with respect to any premises may impose such requirements as the fire authority consider appropriate in the circumstances".


We all know that for the fire authority fire certificates can be expensive.
I cannot see any reason from the debate in another place why it is necessary for the UDC, even as a housing authority, to be given all the functions of a fire authority under that Act. Fire authorities under the post-war Acts are local authorities that run the fire brigades. I concede that the idea in another place that the UDC will have its own firemen and fire service was misplaced. However, if the amendment is passed, issuing fire certificates for the entire area for which the UDC is responsible, and particularly that part of it that may or may not become under its aegis an enterprise zone, will be within its discretion and not that of the existing fire authority—the GLC. If I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt correct me, but if I am right he must tell us why he is giving UDCs what appears to be extraordinary powers. They could be significant in permitting different types of processes. The 1971 Act states:
In so far as a requirement imposed by a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises requires anything to be done or not to be done to or in relation to any part of the relevant building
and so on. That has considerable impact on matters such as rents and capital expenditure on buildings.
1.15 am
If there is to be any effect on the standards of fire safety requirements in any part of the proposed UDC's area, which includes half of my constituency, the House ought to know about it.
The Minister should think carefully before asking us to pass the amendment. My logic may be at fault, but if I am right the Minister should think again, because he is asking the House to pass an amendment which would give lower fire protection for my constituents, for which there is no justification. In that case, it is not a technical amendment.

Mr. King: I think that I can clarify the point for the hon. Member. The amendment would give UDCs access to certain powers and functions under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Homes Insulation Act 1978. Briefly these functions are related to issuing fire certificates and—if and when such functions are commenced—powers to make loans to meet

expenditure on alterations to buildings required under the 1971 Act and powers to make grants towards the cost of thermal insulation of dwellings.
A UDC might need the powers if it were to take on a housing improvement role within the urban development areas and it had been decided to commence certification under the Fire Precautions Act. As with an order made under clause 136, the order transferring any powers under this clause would be subject to affirmative resolution and the powers would be exercised by the UDC instead of the local authority or concurrently with the local authority, depending on the terms of the order.
The powers would of course not be needed unless it were decided that an order giving local housing authority functions to a UDC were necessary. They do not, as might have been assumed, give UDCs any roles in relation to fire fighting or allied services provided by fire authorities.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister now clarify the points that I put to him? The home thermal insulation orders are different from fire certificates. The Minister has confirmed my view that UDCs would be able to give fire certificates. He has given no reason for granting them that power. Existing boroughs do not have the power. Can he justify its inclusion in the Bill?

Mr. King: It is included in anticipation of a decision to commence certication under the 1971 Act. It may be necessary to introduce other legislation to cover other authorities. This is the provision for UDCs. But we are not imparting the power now. That will be covered by an order.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 123 and 124 agreed to.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House; I was concentrating on the fire regulations. Is it possible for the Minister to explain amendment No. 129, or is it too late?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has already spoken to the group of amendments. It is too late.

Clause 137

RENT REBATES

Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 114, line 34, leave out from beginning to "dwellings" in line 36 and insert
It shall be the duty of every urban development corporation to bring into operation and to maintain scheme for granting, to persons who occupy as their homes

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 128.

Mr. King: The amendments are needed to bring the clause into line with the amendments made to the Housing Finance Act 1972 by the Housing Act 1980. They remove the old restriction on the UDC's duty to provide rent rebates only to persons who occupy housing revenue account dwellings. They bring the terms of the UDC within the scope of the Housing Aot 1980 in relation to the right to buy in particular.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 129 agreed to.

New Clause T

SUPPLY OF GOODS ETC. BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 130, after clause 143, in page 120, line 8, at the end insert—
T.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities to public bodies) "public body" shall include any urban development corporation.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) above shall have effect as if made by an order under section 1(5) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (power to provide that a person or description of persons shall be a public body for the purposes of that Act).
(3) An order under the said subsection 1(5) may accordingly vary or revoke the provisions of subsection (1) above as they apply to an urban development corporation specified in the order.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the new clause is to include urban development corporations in the meaning of "public body" for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. It honours an assurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 147

POWER TO SURVEY LAND ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 122, line 41, leave out "14" and insert "28".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 142.

Mr. Fox: With the exception of amendment No. 139 which was introduced by the Government in the Lords on Third Reading, the amendments were tabled by the Opposition. Their effect is to afford the same degree of protection to local authorities as to statutory undertakers in respect of persons authorised to enter upon land for the purpose of surveying.
Amendment No. 142 provides that reference to section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 in this clause shall be construed as reference to section 32 of the Magistrate's Courts Act 1980 on the commencement of that Act. This necessary amendment has the effect of bringing the provisions on penalties in this clause up to date.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments No. 132 to 142 agreed to.

Clause 149

ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY

Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 126, line 15, at end insert—
(3) This section does not extend to Scotland.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment disapplies clause 149 to Scotland. The Church Commissions have no locus in Scotland but "ecclesiastical property" as defined in clause 150 might comprehend some church property in Scotland. We need to make it clear that this clause is concerned with ecclesiastical property in England and Wales only.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause U

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE CARAVAN SITES FOR GIPSIES

Lords amendment: No. 144, after clause 152, in page 127, line 39, insert—

"PART XVIA

CARAVAN SITES

There are hereby repealed—

(a) in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1968 (limitation of duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies and provision for exemption), the words from "and the Minister" to the end"; and
(b) section 190(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (certain exemptions from the duty mentioned in paragraph (a) above to be continued in force)."

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 145, 146 and amendments thereto, Nos. 147 to 149 and Nos. 156, 253, 254 and 265.

Mr. Fox: The seven proposed new clauses and additions to schedule 34 and to the long title seek to restore proposals on gipsy sites contained in the original Bill, together with one additional proposal. In the case of four clauses and an addition to the schedules of repeals there are minor drafting changes. Amendments Nos. 145 and 147 contain changes of substance that are acceptable to the Government. The additional proposal in amendments Nos. 156 and 253 is to delete the specific reference to gipsies from section 127(c) of the Highways Act 1959. That has already been accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I shall be happy to enlarge if the House wishes me to do so.

Mr. Graham: I congratulate and commend the Government on their intention,

which has been persistent throughout. I acknowledge that in attempting to streamline the original Bill the clauses were dropped. The Minister may recall that in Committee I sought to reintroduce them, but understood that under our procedures it was not possible to do so. I know that on both sides of the House and in another place there has been a general desire for these modest improvements to aid and support local authorities in certain parts of the country to deal with problems caused by the lack of sites and the lack of powers.
In my part of North London, and in outer London generally, a great deal of frustration has been felt by local councils and local residents when the problems have come to the fore. The Cripps report of 1968 has taken a long time to implement, but a little flesh has been put upon the bones over the years. I know that my authority in Enfield—I am delighted to see in his place the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) who will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has asked local Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), to do what they can. The additional powers to tow away caravans parked in any other than a designated site, increased fines for persons who intentionally obstruct anyone acting in the exercise of powers conferred, and the increase in the range of weapons open to a local authority will be warmly welcomed.
On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for finding the opportunity to implement what I know was always their original intention.

Dr. Mawhinney: I also welcome the amendments. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) that the amendments are in no sense partisan. They have the support of another place and of Members on both sides of this House. The hon. Memfor Edmonton referred to problems in his area. It is not without significance that three of the four noble Lords in another place who moved the new clauses had connections with the county of Cambridgeshire, and two of the three with my constituency—Baroness Stedman, representing the Opposition, and my predecessor in Peterborough, Lord Harman-Nicholls, representing the Government.
The amendments must be taken in conjunction with clause 61, which provides finance for the provision of gipsy sites. I welcome the Minister's statement in the other place that the moratorium on the provision of finance for the sites has been lifted and that some money is now available for them.
1.30 am
While clause 61 is important, because it seeks to protect the rights of gypsies—they have rights, despite what the majority of the people may think—the amendments are also important, because they seek to protect the rights of local authorities and local residents. Subsection (3) of new clause W makes clear that designation depends on adequate provision already having been made. That is the crux of the amendments.
In my constituency we already have a proper site, with 22 places. A second site for another 50 places is being sought. My district council agreed on a bipartisan basis that money should be sought to provide that second site, and that at the same time designation should be sought to give the powers conferred by the amendments on the district council.
Designation was not available when the decision was made, and in the intervening period there have been strains. Some of the more Left-wing members of my Labour-controlled district council want to press ahead and obtain the money anyway, irrespective of the designation powers. I pay tribute to the leader of the council, who understands the importance of linking provision with designation.
The provision of sites will undoubtedly attract more gipsies. The local authority must have the powers to deal with that. No doubt other district councils will want to apply for grants to provides sites, and to apply for designation. I support the view of my district council, provided the provision and the designation are linked. If it seeks the one without the other, particularly the provision of money without the designation, I shall not support it, and I trust that it will not be made available, because the two must be seen together.
That leads me to the amendment in my name to Lords amendment No. 146, which makes clear that if a district council

wishes to have designation it must make a joint application with the county council for designation to be conferred on it. My district council does not have a problem. The Cambridgeshire county council has generously agreed that if adequate provision is made it will support Peterborough district council's application for designation.
I am not casting aspersions on the county council. However, there is the general point that if one district in a county makes provision, and incurs a certain amount of political opprobrium in the process, it should have the right to be designated. However, if surrounding districts in the same county council area have not made provision, they may see themselves as being at a disadvantage. The excess gipsies who come to the district that has made provision will be moved on, because that district will then have designation powers, and they will be moved into adjoining districts that do not have designation powers.
Those districts will then tell the county council "There are more of us than there are of those that have made provision, and we want you to protect the rights of the majority—the majority of districts that have not made provision." The county council will be under pressure not to agree to a joint application, for the sake of the majority of districts in its area. If that happens, the district that has made provision and incurred the political opprobrium will be robbed of designation, and its final state will be worse than the first. It was for that reason that I tabled the amendment. I shall not speak to it at greater length because it is late. However, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I wish briefly to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I know that the inclusion of the clauses will be welcomed by my local authority, by my constituents and by the constituents of the hon. Member for Edmonton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). The London borough of Enfield has been concerned during the past two or three years about the considerable difficulties that the inadequate powers have created, but this is a large step in the right direction.

Mr. Squire: I, too, would like to make a brief contribution at this late hour as someone who served on the Standing Committee and, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) will remember, endeavoured to get through amendments similar to those now before the House. It is tremendous news for many boroughs, particularly Havering. I believe that the House of Lords has performed a stirling duty. Should anyone suggest that it does not have a place in future, I know that a number of my constituents would rush to its defence in the light of these amendments.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Having campaigned to redress the balance of rights and privileges in favour of the law-abiding citizen, I welcome these additional provisions relating to gipsies and caravan sites which the Government originally wished to see included if Parliamentary time permitted. It is essential that the nomalies created by existing legislation should be corrected, and these proposals go a long way in that direction.
For far too long it would appear that the itinerant traveller has been able to wend his unattractive way, almost without impunity, leaving a trail of damage and disturbance in his wake.
In Hertfordshire, particularly in Welwyn and Hatfield, local residents have had to suffer the increasing scandal of gipsies invading the roadsides, fields and green spaces. They will be particularly grateful if the Bill, when enacted, can bring about the alleviation of the problem that such an inflow of illegal camping can create for a community.
It is wholly appropriate that this Government, being committed to the principles of law and order and the protection of the environment, should ensure that this corrective action is taken.

Mr. Fox: I am grateful to the House for the welcome that it has given to these new clauses. Of all the parts of the Bill that were dropped between its first presentation in the other place and when we faced it here, this is the one part about which most representations have been made. I am certain that what is proposed will go a long way to mitigate this problem.
I cannot advocate acceptance of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend

the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The Government welcome the concept of district designation, but any such application must be considered in the light of the county council's duty to provide an adequate network of sites throughout the county. Therefore, the county council must always be involved in applications for designation. Although I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment—indeed, I do not believe that what he described will come about—I shall certainly watch carefully how matters develop.

Quesion put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 149 agreed to.

New Clause AA

PRECEPTS ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR LAND DRAINAGE

Lords amendment: No. 150, after clause 154, in page 128, line 15, at the end insert—
AA.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 46 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (by virtue of which the aggregate amount for which precepts in respect of the expenses of a local land drainage district may be issued for any one financial year to a local authority may not, unless special consent has been obtained, exceed 1·7 times the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year) for the words from "1·7" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section (effect of special resolution) for the words from 1·7" to "area" there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of that authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
(3) Accordingly, in section 109 of that Act (regulations and orders)—

(a) in subsection (2), after the words "under section" there shall be inserted the words "46 or"; and
(b) in subsection (3), after the word "27" there shall be inserted the word "46".

(4) The amendments made by this section shall have effect in relation to every rate period, within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967, beginning with such rate period as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall not specify a rate period beginning before 1st April 1981.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 151 and the amendment thereto and Lords amendment No. 260.

Mr. Fox: The limit of 1·7p contained in section 46(5) of the Land Drainage Act 1976 was fixed originally in the River Boards Act 1948 at 4d and decimalised to 1·7p in the Water Act 1973.
I do not have to refer hon. Members to the costs of maintaining and improving our rivers to suggest that this needs rectification. I can assure the House that, before making an order under these new powers, the Minister will have close regard to the need to restrain public expenditure. The local authority associations are represented on these boards and will be very careful in approving any increase.
Lords amendment No. 151 is concerned also with drainage. The intention is to remove the distinction which at present exists between certain hereditaments, mainly mineral workings, and general hereditaments for the assessment of drainate rates by internal drainage boards. I hope that hon. Members will accept that very brief explanation.
Lords amendment No. 260 is consequential upon Lords amendment No. 151.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Lords amendment No. 151 repeals section 65(8) of the Land Drainage Act 1976, and my amendment seeks to ensure that that does not take effect until 1 April 1981.
However, before explaining my proposal, I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for agreeing with Lords amendment No. 150. The purpose of it is exactly the same as that of my Ten-Minute Bill, the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill, which the Government resisted earlier in the year. I am delighted that they have had second thoughts and come round to the view that this provision is necessary.
Turning to Lords amendment No. 151, while I do not challenge the principle in itself, I understand that difficulties might occur if the Lords amendment came into force immediately the Bill was enacted. That would be in the middle of a rating year, and it could result in some rateable values of hereditaments such as gravel

pits and other mineral workings being changed in the middle of a rating year. Internal drainage boards might then have the prospect of having to pay back to the owners and occupiers of such hereditaments drainage rates which they had already collected during the year.
I am sure that if my amendment were accepted it would reduce a lot of the confusion that could arise if the Lords amendment came into force in the middle of a rating year.

Mr. Fox: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of the Government's acceptance of Lords amendment No. 150. I pay credit to him for his foresight in introducing his Ten-Minute Bill.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the problems which would be created should repayments be demanded, and I undertake to do whatever I can to impress upon ratepayers that this benefit needs to be looked at very carefully. If immediate repayment would cause hardship, we would have to do what we could to help some of these small authorities which obviously would be in financial difficulty.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's amendment. Cannot we hear whether it is accepted?

Mr. Fox: I did not mean to give the impression that the Government accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I said that we were aware of the problem and that, if rebates were forced upon some of these smaller authorities, we would do what we could to mitigate the hardship. Where one helps people, it is not unreasonable to make certain that they understand any immediate problems that may be created.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 151 agreed to.

Clause 155

RELAXATION OF MINISTERIAL CONTROLS OVER SOCIAL SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 152, in page 128, line 17, leave out "Subsection (1) of" and insert
The following section shall be substituted for

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 153 and 255.

Mr. Fox: These are purely drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 153 agreed to.

New Clause CC

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 154, after clause 155 in page 129, line 14, at the end insert—
CC.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 32 of the Local Government Act 1974 (which empowers a Minister of the Crown or an authority subject to investigation to give notice to a Local Commissioner that in the opinion of the Minister or authority disclosure of certain documents or information would be contrary to the public interest and which prevents any person from communicating any such document or information to any other person, or for any purpose) for the words "any person" there shall be substituted the words "the Local Commissioner or any member of the staff of a Commission who is allocated to assist him".
(2) In subsection (3) of section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (which makes similar provision for Scotland) for the words "any person" there shall be substituted the words "the Commissioner or any member of his staff".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government recognise the need for a change in the legislation affecting the local commissioners' access to information, and we support this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause DD

AMENDMENT OF S. 94 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1907

Lords amendment: No. 155, after clause 156 in page 130, line 8, at the end insert—
DD. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907—
(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and

pleasure vessels on any canal owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.
(9) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means "let for hire to the public.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause has two functions, both of which seek to clear up some of the difficulties created by the present system for the licensing of pleasure craft under section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 156 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 157 agreed to.

Clause 160

AMENDMENTS OF INNER URBAN AREAS ACT 1978

Lords amendment: No. 157A, in page 131, line 21, leave out "Parts V, IX," and insert "Parts IV, V, IX, XII,"

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 157B to 157G.

Mr. Fox: These amendments are technical and necessary to ensure that this clause correctly explains the application of the Bill to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 157B to 1571 agreed to.

Lords amendment Nos. 158 to 168 agreed to.

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS MENTIONED IN SECTION 46(11)(c)

Lords amendment: No. 169, in page 146, line 5, column 3, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 12 and insert—

"Sections 2."

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 170 and 171.

Mr. King: These are technical amendments to add the parts of schedule 2 to the Local Government Act which are not already included in the list of enactments which the Secretary of State may repeal.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 170 and 171 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 8

DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 172, in page 146, line 29, leave out "each" and insert "the".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 173 to 175.

Mr. King: These are technical amendments which deal with certain aspects of the wording in relation to England and Wales under the rate support grant arrangements. They are effectively drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 173 to 177 agreed to.

Schedule 9

PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE UNDER

PART VIII

Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 147, line 41, at end insert—
(bb) the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land;".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 181.

Mr. King: These amendments clarify the definitions in the schedule of prescribed expenditure. The amendments

are self-explanatory in regard to the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land and the other items that are covered in this respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 181 agreed to.

New Schedule D

EXPENDITURE OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE

Lords amendment: No. 182, in page 148, line 21, after Schedule 9 at the end insert—

PART I

AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 2 TO LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT 1963

1. The provisions of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 (constitution and general functions of Greater London Council) relating to the capital expenditure of and loans made by that Council and to borrowing by that Council shall be amended as follows.

2. In paragraph 25, for the words "The expenditure by the Council on capital account or" there shall be substituted the words "Prescribed expenditure by the Council and expenditure by the Council".

3. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after that paragraph:
25A. Subject to paragraph 25B below, in paragraph 25 above and paragraphs 26 to 29 below "prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by section 62(2) of that Act (by virtue of which any reference to prescribed expenditure in the said Part VIII is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 9 to the Act).
25B. In the application of the said Schedule 9 by virtue of paragraph 25A above—
(a) the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (f):
(f) the making of grants of a capital nature other than grants to local authorities or the London Transport Executive;" and
(b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3:
3. The investment of a superannuation fund is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.".
25C. For the purposes of paragraph 25 above and of paragraphs 26 and 28 below section 71 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 shall apply to an acquisition of an interest in or right over property by the Council as it applies to such


an acquisition by an authority to whom Part VIII of that Act applies.".

4. In paragraph 26(1) of that Schedule, for the words "on capital account" there shall be substituted the words "by way of prescribed expenditure".

5. The following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 28 of that Schedule:
(1) If the whole of the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months or the relevant financial period aforesaid is not required to be so expended, the Council may expend for any other authorised purpose in those twelve, or, as the case may be, six months (in addition to the amount authorised in relation to that other purpose) an amount not exceeding the unexpended portion of the first-mentioned amount.
(1A) subject to sub-paragraphs (1B) and (1C) below, if—

(a) the annual money Act specifies for the first twelve months of a financial period (the relevant twelve months) an amount (the additional amount) which is stated by the Act to be a proportion of the amount authorised for the relevant twelve months to be expended by the Council in respect of prescribed expenditure and lending to other persons (the basic amount) and to be additional to that amount; and
(b) the Council expended for the relevant twelve months, in respect of prescribed expenditure and on lending to other persons, an amount exceeding the basic amount but not exceeding the agree-gate of the basic amount and the additional amount.

the amount by which their expenditure exceeds the basic amount shall be treated as having been spent during the first twelve months of the financial period following the relevant twelve months.
(1B) Where, in the twelve months preceding the relevant twelve months (the previous twelve months) the Council have spent by way of prescribed expenditure or on lending to other persons an amount less than the aggregate of the basic amount for the previous twelve months and any amount authorised for those twelve months under subparagraph (2) below (the previously authorised aggregate), there shall be treated as having been spent during the first twelve months of the financial period following the relevant twelve months the amount which would have been so treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (IA) above subject to the appropriate deduction.
(1C) The appropriate deduction is a deduction of the lesser of the following amounts namely—

(a) the amount by which the Council's expenditure for the previous twelve months fell short of the previously authorised aggregate; and

(b) the amount (if any) which was specified as the additional amount for the relevant twelve months.

(2) If the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended in the first twelve or last six months of any financial period, other than any such additional amount as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A)(a) above, is found to be insufficient, the Treasury may on the application of the Council authorise the Council to expend such further sums as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be necessary or desirable for the Council to expend, not exceeding in the aggregate such amount as may be specified by that Act for the purposes of this subparagraph in relation to those twelve or, as the case may be, six months.".

6. The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (5)(a) of that paragraph:
(a) by way of prescribed expenditure for a purpose mentioned in that Act; or".

7. The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph:
28A.—(1) The appropriate Minister may direct that—

(a) a specified part of the amount of expenditure authorised by an annual money Act may be spent only on a specified project;
(b) no part of that amount may be spent on specified project.

(2) A project may only be specified under sub-paragraph (1) above if the appropriate Minister—

(a) is of opinion that the project is of national or regional importance, or
(b) is of opinion that the project, though not itself of national or regional importance is, part of a project which is of such importance.

(3) In this paragraph "the appropriate minister" means the Secretary of State except in relation to expenditure for the purpose of functions the responsibility for which is vested in the Minister of Transport, and in respect of such expenditure, means that Minister.".

8. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 29 of that Schedule:
29. The Council may borrow money for the purpose of prescribed expenditure or for the purpose of lending it to other persons if, but only if, the expenditure or lending is authorised by an annual money Act.".

9. The following shall be added after that paragraph:—

"The London Transport Executive

29A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, for the purposes of paragraphs 25 to 29 above prescribed expenditure of the London Transport Executive or of a wholly-owned subsidiary of that Executive shall be treated as if it were prescribed expenditure of the Council; and accordingly—



(a) any payment in respect of such expenditure by the Executive or by one of their wholly-owned subsidiaries shall be treated for the purposes of those paragraphs as a payment by the Council; and
(b) any acquisition by the Executive or by such a subsidiary shall be treated for those purposes as an acquisition by the Council.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, in sub-paragraph (1) above "prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by section 62(2) of that Act.

(3) In the application of Schedule 9 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above—
(a) the words "or Passenger Transport Executives" shall be omitted from paragraph 1(f); and
(b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3:—
3. The investment of a superannuation fund is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.".

(4) In this paragraph "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning assigned to it by section 45(1) of the Transport (London) Act 1969.".

PART II

AMENDMENT OF TRANSPORT (LONDON) ACT 1969

10. The following subsections shall be inserted after section 11(2) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 (which among other things requires the London Transport Executive to submit to the Greater London Council and obtain the Council's approval of any proposal for expenditure by the Executive or any subsidiary of theirs which involves a substantial outlay on capital account):—
(2A) Any proposal by the Executive or any subsidiary of theirs to acquire—

(a) an interest in or right over land, other than a freehold interest, where the interest or right confers a right to occupy the land; or
(b) an interest in or right over goods other than the property in them,

shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above as being a proposal involving an outlay on capital account.
(2B) In subsection (2A) above "freehold interest" means the fee simple absolute in possession (subject to any existing rights other than rights under a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money) and the "property" (in relation to goods) means the general property in them and not merely a special property.".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 183.

Mr. King: These amendments were introduced by the Government on Report in the House of Lords. Their effect is to delete schedule 10 and replace it with a new schedule which is designed to alter and supplement the provisions of the London Government Act 1963 so as to put the Greater London Council substantially in the same position as if it were subject to part VIII of the Bill, and to bring it within the scope of part VIII capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive. The further effect is to amend the Transport (London) Act 1969 to ensure that any proposal by the London Transport Executive to acquire a leasehold interest in land or property will be a proposal requiring the approval of the Greater London Council.

Mr. Spearing: In another place the Under-Secretary, Lord Bellwin, said that
the new schedule makes provision for capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive to be controlled in much the same way as expenditure by any of the other passenger transport executives will be controlled in future."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 1980; Vol. 414, c. 216.]
He then went on to talk about comparable authorities outside London.
I suggest to the Minister that probably there are not comparable bodies outside London to the London Transport Executive because it is responsible to the Greater London Council. It may be controlled in the same way as passenger transport executives but I do not think that the transport organisation in the Metropolis can be written off in quite that way.
The point arises in that this provision makes it quite clear that the capital expenditure by London Transport will be prescribed, as I understand it, under part VIII of the Bill. At the moment, authority for raising money of this sort comes within the Greater London Council (Money) Bill and that will also, I believe, be prescribed. However, the point of my rising on this matter is to make inquiry about a subject which is causing some concern in London relating to capital sales by London Transport of its land.
In many ways the Government appear to wish to encourage the release of land held by statutory undertakers of this sort, and seem to want the capital obtained


to be used as part of the capital requirements of the undertaking. But if the sales of that sort by London Transport will come clearly within the ambit of Part VIII, the matter comes under the terms of clause 63, which is part of part VIII, and in particular under subsection (3)(d) and subsections (5) and (6).
Without spending much time on this matter, as the hour is late, I just put this point to the Minister. It is possible that capital sales by London Transport falling foul of that clause may complicate the running of that organisation, in that it is controlled in such a way that capital sales, if not spent within a year, have a trip-over effect for the subsequent year, and it may be that the expenditure is thereby constrained in a way in which the Minister does not wish.
It may be, as Lord Gainford said in the other place, that there was not sufficient consultation with London Transport on this issue. I rather fancy that that was so, because I understand, having initiated inquiries, that there is some concern. Even if the Minister cannot entirely allay the fears of the House at this late hour, I hope that at a later stage in legislation the point will be looked at. I do not think that the Minister wants to put London Transport under any greater disadvantage than it has already, coming within part VIII and, therefore, being very heavily constrained in capital expenditure, which is the Government's present policy.

Mr. King: Capital expenditure of the London Transport Executive will be a part of the GLC's capital expenditure, which will have to be set out, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in the annual Greater London Council (Money) Bill. The provision for the use of capital receipts by the GLC will be made in the contingency provisions attached to the money Bill, and account will be taken of the LTE's capital receipts in the money Bill contingency provisions for the GLC as a whole.
We have not sought to disadvantage the GLC or the LTE as against other authorities. They wished to stick to their traditional money Bill procedure, to which the Government were happy to accede. Obviously, it is necessary that the general principles apply under the capital expenditure provisions in the Bill, and the GLC

and the LTE are expected to conform with those same general principles—not to their disadvantage but not to their advantage either. We want them to be on a fair basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 183 to 199 agreed to.

Schedule 12

FURTHER PLANNING AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 199A, in page 156, line 45, at end insert—
(3) Notice of an application made under subsection (1) above shall be given to the local planning authority within whose area the building is situated at the same time that the application is submitted to the Secretary of State.
(4) In subsection (3) of this section "local planning authority" shall, in relation to a building in Greater London, include the Greater London Council.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 200, 201, 203 and 204.

Mr. Fox: We accept that local planning authorities should be notified of applications under the new section 54(a). Indeed, we shall need to approach them to make sure that planning permission exists or is being sought for the alteration of the building in question or for the redevelopment of the site. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.
Lords amendment No. 200 is designed to make it clear that the contract referred to is the last contract that is made before building work starts and not, for example, a contract to prepare a scheme. As the intention of the new condition is to prevent premature demolition, there is no objection to the additional words. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.
Amendment No. 201 is required to correct a technical error in clause 56A(5). Amendment No. 203 is necessary to ensure that when a listed building enforcement notice has been served and listed building consent is subsequently granted under paragraph (6), the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in relation to the works for which consent has been granted.
2 am
Amendment No. 204 is a small but important amendment with which I ask the House to agree. While the advice of the appropriate council will be sought in the appropriate cases, it would defeat the object of speeding up consideration of applications for grants by delegating the administration of town schemes to selected participating authorities if the advice of the council had to be sought about every small grant because of the word "shall" which was in the earlier prints of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 200 and 201 agreed to.

Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SURVEYS AND PLANS

Lords amendment: No. 202, in page 159, line 27, at end insert—
(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall affect any order submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation before the passing of this Act.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is expected that 200 tree preservation orders will be before the Secretary of State when this measure is passed. Given that these orders will be at various stages of the determination procedure it is clearly desirable, both on the grounds of consistency and efficiency, that the decisions on the orders should remain with the Secretary of State. This amendment does not raise any new questions of principle. It is simply a practical measure which will effectively safeguard the position of those orders made before the passing of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 203 and 204 agreed to.

Schedule 13

BODIES TO WHOM PART X APPLIES

Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 164, line 28, at end insert—
Provided that where any persons carry on a business to the main purpose of which any such undertaking is merely ancillary those persons

shall not be treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraph 18 above

Read a second time.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 1, leave out from 'business' to 'shall' in line 3 and insert—
as a body corporate having capital (other than loan capital) which is divided into shares or stock owned, or capable of being owned, by members of the public, those persons and that body corporate".
I shall try to be brief. I have an interest to declare in the subject matter. Lords amendment No. 205 seeks to amend part X of the Bill so as to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to compile the register of land in which public bodies have a freehold or leasehold interest and also to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to enforce the sale of such land by those bodies. In other words, the amendment would define rather more closely the bodies to which this part may apply.
It is clear that it was never the Government's intention to apply part X of the Bill to privately owned bodies, which by accident, or, more likely, because their assets happened to be connected with water and the sea shore, were set up by Act of Parliament. Lords amendment No. 205 was proposed by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and was accepted by the Government. It goes only so far as to exclude private enterprise operators who operate some form of facility such as a jetty or railway pursuant to statutory powers, where that facility is ancillary to their main business. It does not exclude from part X such privately owned undertakings set up by statute which have as their main business such activities. Here I declare my interest. The undertaking which comes immediately to my mind is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company but it equally applies to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, to Milford Haven and a long list of such undertakings.
It is clear that it is not the Government's intention to apply part X of the Bill to privately owned bodies. I cite as authority for that the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, who said in Committee:


The hon. Gentleman knows that this part of the Bill applies to publicly owned bodies I have made that clear. I have also made clear that we do not think that it is sensible, for the reasons that I have given about the disciplines that apply over privately owned land, for it to apply there.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 April 1980; c. 340.]
Similarly, in the other place Lord Avebury specifically asked whether what is now amendment No. 205 covered the case of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. In replying, my noble Friend the Earl of Avon said:
Speaking off the cuff, which I do not like doing, we think not."—[Official Report, Home of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1075.]
He was wise indeed to say that, because he was in fact wrong.
The public bodies affected by part X of the Bill are set out in schedule 13 to the Bill. The first 17 are not contentious, but No. 18 is the phrase "statutory undertakers". That is an unfortunate phrase, first used, I understand, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which in itself should be enough to cause misgivings, on the Government side of the House at least.
The meaning of the phrase is defined in the unnumbered paragraph at the end of schedule 13. It says:
In paragraph 18 above "statutory undertakers" means persons authorised by any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertaking
and so on.
It clearly applies to every dock undertaking which is set up by Act of Parliament, which, in fact, is every dock undertaking in private ownership.
Clearly, I would not wish at this late hour to press this matter to a Division if it can be avoided, and if the Minister can give me some assurance that, in order to correct this anomaly, in due course a statutory instrument will be laid before the House under clause 82(2), which provides that
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend Schedule 13 to this Act … by amending or deleting any entry for the time being contained in the Schedule".
That would satisfy the point and correct that issue which the Government did not wish to raise in the first place.

Mr. King: As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Lords amendment was to qualify the definition of the statutory undertaker but does not go as far as he would wish. I well understand the point that he is raising. He fairly quoted what I said in Standing Committee about it, that it was intended to apply to land held by public bodies. That, indeed, is the title of part X of the Bill.
I give him the assurance that we believe that this matter may be met, but of course it cannot be met now without further amendment. We believe that under the powers of the Secretary of State by order it will be possible to tackle it. I would rather not give my hon. Friend an answer off the cuff tonight but I give him the assurance that we shall now look at the matter urgently in relation to the power under clause 82(2) and see whether it can be satisfactorily resolved

Mr. Wickenden: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 206 agreed to.

Schedule 14

COMMUNITY LAND ACT

Lords amendment: No. 207, in page 168, line 27, at end insert—
( ) Any notice served under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 7 before the passing of this Act shall cease to be a local land charge on the passing of this Act; and where any such notice has been registered as a local land charge the registration shall, without prejudice to any rules made under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, be cancelled accordingly.

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is a tidying-up provision. It ensures that notices that have been served by local authorities under the Community Land Act saying whether they intend, or do not intend, to acquire land shall no longer be a local land charge and that all references to them shall be deleted from the local land charge register.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 17

LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES: ACQUISITION OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 181, line 34, at end insert
or, after the commencement of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, within the meaning of section 32 of that Act".

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment which has become necessary owing to the recent passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the penalties involved thereto.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 20

LAND: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 209, in page 191, line 40, leave out from "3(1)(b)" to end of line 2 on page 192 and insert
omit the words from "except" to "case";
(b) in paragraph 3(1) omit head (c) and the proviso;
(c) in paragraph 7A omit "the confirming authority an to" and "or affixing of notices"; and
(d) in paragraph 19(4)—
(i) for "having jurisdiction to confirm or" substitute "or authority having jurisdiction to"; and
(ii) add the following proviso at the end:—
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust."

Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 210 to 214 and Nos. 246 to 251.

Mr. Fox: Amendment No. 209 is a purely technical alteration to give proper effect to the intention behind the changes set out in paragraph 1.
I deal next with amendments Nos. 210, and 211. When the schedule was considered in Committee upstairs the Government

agreed to retain the need for ministerial consent where local authorities wish to appropriate or dispose of land held for use as allotments. This and the following amendment provide the necessary drafting changes to give effect to that undertaking.
Although amendment No. 213 looks formidable, it introduces a simple but important safeguard. It provides that where a local authority proposes to appropriate or dispose of open space land under the powers of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the proposal must first be advertised for two consecutive weeks in its local newspaper and any objections considered. The schedule already makes similar provisions in respect of appropriations and disposals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and the Local Government Act 1972.
Amendments Nos. 212 and 214 are to do with parish councils.
Amendment No. 246 is consequential to amendment No. 209.
Amendment No. 247 is consequential to amendment No. 210, which restores the procedure under which ministerial consent is required for the appropriation of allotment land by a local authority.
Amendment No. 248 is consequential on amendment No. 211.
Amendment No. 249 make a change which is consequential upon paragraph 11 of schedule 20, which requires local authorities to advertise proposals to dispose of land.
Amendment No. 250 is consequential upon the amendment to paragraph 12 of schedule 20.
Amendment No. 251 is consequential on the amendment to paragraph 17 of schedule 20 in respect of the appropriation of open space land by parish councils.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 210 to 214 agreed to.

Schedule 23

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 215, page 202, line 24, leave out "made by statutory instrument" and insert "under section 123 above".

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical point, to make it clear that the Secretary of State may prescribe the number of members of a UDC by the main constitution order made under the schedule. This was deficient in the previous draft.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 216 agreed to.

Schedule 26

PLANNING FUNCTIONS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS—SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 216A, in page 229, line 4, at end insert—
Section 104 (compulsory acquisition of listed buildings in need of repair).
Section 105 (repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition under s. 104).
Section 107 (minimum compensation in case of listed building deliberately left derelict).
Section 116 (management etc. of listed buildings acquired by local authority or Secretary of State).
Section 257 (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to listed buildings).
Section 262 (designation of conservation area).
Section 262A (control of demolition in conservation area).
Section 262B (formulation and publication of proposals for preservation and enhancement of conservation area).
Schedule 10 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings).

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment brings the planning functions of a UDC in Scotland into line with those for a UDC in England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 27

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS: FINANCE ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 217, in page 236, line 31, at end insert—
( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a report under this paragraph shall deal with operation during

the year of the corporation's arrangements for consultation about the exercise of its powers with local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area.

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment requires the report by a UDC to deal also with the operation of the corporation's arrangement for consultation. I imagine that this has wide support in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 28

ENTERPRISE ZONES

Lords amendment: No. 218, in page 244, line 30, at end insert—
(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, where planning permission is so granted for any development or class of development, the enterprise zone authority may direct that the permission shall not apply in relation

(a) to a specified development; or
(b) to a specified class of development; or
(c) to a specified class of development in a specified area within the enterprise zone.

(3B) An enterprise zone authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3A) above unless they have submitted it to the Secretary of State and he has notified them that he approves of their giving it.

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments Nos. 219 and 220.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Under-Secretary of State is aware of the deep concern that there has been in the Greater Manchester area about the proposal to build a hypermarket of about 175,000 sq ft in the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone.
Yesterday I took a deputation to see the Minister at the Department of the Environment. The deputation included distinguished representatives of the Norwest Co-operative Society and all the chambers of trade in Greater Manchester. Mr. Walter Frost, the president, Mr. Rodney Aspray, the chief executive officer, Mr. K. J. Tottle, a director and Mr. E. C. F. Rogers, the estates and


property controller, spoke for the Norwest Co-operative Society. Mr. Colin Gregory spoke for the 19 chambers of trade. At the same time I made it clear to the Minister on the basis of a statement from the Greater Manchester Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the local authorities in the conurbation are overwhelmingly against the proposed hypermarket. Indeed, Mr. James Hetherington, the secretary of the association, stated:
The establishment of a major retail outlet in an enterprise zone in Greater Manchester free of effective planning control will, in the view of the Association, do considerable harm to the infrastructure of the conurbation.
For the Norwest Co-operative Society it was argued that the proposed hypermarket would not, overall, create any extra jobs as the damage caused to existing shops, including closures and cutbacks in staffing, would more than cancel out any new jobs that might be created. A powerful example was given in that 100 jobs would be lost immediately in the Irlam-O'-th'-Heights area where the society has a detailed planning consent for a new store.
Mr. Aspray said that the society would almost certainly not develop the new outlet as planned if the hypermarket is built, as the viability studies suggested that the store would just not hold up against such a huge competitor enjoying all the special advantages that attach to enterprise zones.
The society's representatives also emphasised that to allow retail developments in the enterprise zone of the size proposed would conflict sharply with the Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the Greater Manchester structure plan.
For the chambers of trade Mr. Gregory said that what was proposed
could seriously damage existing major investment in town centres with corresponding losses of employment.
He pointed out that within a mile of the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone there is the now almost completed Arndale centre, which has entailed massive investment. Nearby in Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Leigh, Wigan and Stretford there are other equally prestigious town centre developments that now contribute much by way of return on other major investments.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister to accept that there would be dangers inherent in the granting of complete freedom from planning control within the enterprise zone. The outcome of the meeting yesterday was a statement from the Minister in the following terms:
The deputation has made its case very clearly. We are considering including a requirement in the Salford/Trafford Enterprise Zone scheme which would make larger-scale retail developments subject to individual planning applications.
This is a very important matter for retailers throughout the Manchester conurbation.
I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in seeing the deputation and his clear concern to make a constructive response to the strong—indeed, unanswerable—case that was argued by the deputation. What I should like to hear now in the House is a more detailed statement from the Minister. As he heard yesterday, the issue is very important for Greater Manchester, and I feel sure that he will want to do everything in his power further to allay the anxieties that the deputation expressed to him yesterday.

Mr. Graham: This is not an issue on which we want to divide the House. However, these matters are crucial to many retailers and it is a pity that we are debating them at this late hour. I am grateful for the detail given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We both represent co-operative interests. Some Conservative Members also have retailing background and experience.
The Minister should deal with the unease that is felt. He has displayed in Committee and informally his recognition that there are questions that need answers. We recognise that it is not possible to lay down a blueprint that will be applied rigidly to every enterprise zone. They are all different and there will be different solutions.
The Association of Municipal Authorities last week called a conference of representatives of authorities with enterprise zones in their area. Various concerns were voiced. A local authority, if not sovereign, has a major say in whether it wishes to include retailing. However, the local authority in Swansea


wished to exclude retailing. It was told by the Welsh Office that major retail units had to be included and that it must entertain developments of up to 65,000 sq ft. Swansea protested, but has not been able to resist the determination of the Welsh Office. We need to know more about that. Merseyside has said that it will not entertain shopping users of over 10,000 sq ft. It has been able to get that accepted. The Minister should make it clear whether he and his officials intend to be the arbiters of what they consider are the best interests of the people in an area.
At the meeting Newcastle also emphasised its fear of the retail implications. Land near the city centre had been taken out of the proposed area. It was concerned about facing existing developers with what could be seen to be unfair competition—and I am not now arguing about the philosophy behind enterprise zones. However, it is one thing to encourage an authority with an appropriate piece of land to invite new users. It is another to force competition on developers and entrepreneurs who have spent millions of pounds building up nearby city centres where they have to pay rates, and go through the gamut of planning.
I could give several other examples, but I shall not because of the lateness of the hour. The Minister should say a brief word to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe who has presented a powerful case. He did so most cogently. I was pleased to hear him say that the Minister was sympathetic. Nothing specific can be said about Manchester, but I hope that the Minister will reassure many authorities that the Government will not insist—over the heads of the people—on the Ministry's view of the type of mix that should be found in an enterprise zone.

Mr. Spearing: We know the background to this provision. I reinforce the view expressed by my colleagues, particularly in relation to sub-paragraph (3B). It is clear that if a local authority with an enterprise zone in its area wishes to make one of those directions, the Secretary of State will notify it of his approval. If the Secretary of State does not approve, the local authority will not

benefit and the exclusion does not occur.
For example, large-scale retail activity could go ahead. The matter lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, and therefore the amendment is not as good as it looks at first glance. Will the Minister confirm that if an urban development corporation is the enterprise zone authority the local authority will have no locus? If, for example, an enterprise zone in the Isle of Dogs is sponsored not by the local authority but by an urban development corporation, the local authority will not be able to apply to the Minister. The matter will fall within the province of the urban development corporation. In that case, the amendment is a non-starter. It has no effect.

Mr. King: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is still trying to stir up hostility, although it may not exist to the same extent as earlier. The idea that an enterprise zone is being imposed on the Isle of Dogs, under the aegis of the urban development corporation, and against a hostile local authority, is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that Tower Hamlets applied to have an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. The GLC, Tower Hamlets and the urban development corporation agree about the desirability of having an enterprise zone.
The safeguard of the Secretary of State's approval has been provided because this provision involves voluntary co-operation. We have a proposal for a new and relaxed form of planning regime. We want to experiment in certain areas to see if it provides an incentive to enterprise. With it, go certain attractive inducements such as the exemption from industrial and commercial rates. An authority could agree to a relaxed and simplified planning regime. Having achieved its objectives, and in the absence of sub-paragraph (3B), it could easily tighten up the planning regime in every particular. That would negate the purpose of the exercise. The Secretary of State's confirmation is needed to ensure that the integrity of the original scheme is upheld.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) raised the question of our approach to retailing issues. As I have made clear before, there are difficulties involved and it is not possible to lay


down a limitation applicable to every enterprise zone. That would be unwise. I cannot comment on the situation in Swansea, because that is being dealt with by the Welsh Office. However, we have made clear our views.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) felt the need to put the matter on the record again. I do not know why he felt that to be necessary. He saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with a deputation yesterday. We are well aware of the concern. Two weeks ago I visited Manchester and inspected some of the area. I discussed with a number of those in the area their concern about the implications that they saw for retailing development. I made clear that we understand the concerns. We are looking at the problems and it is clear that in certain areas some limitation on retailing may be sensible.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I make it clear again that the issue is one of considerable importance in Manchester. I have been asked by constituents to express their anxiety and I shall go on doing that in the House unless we have the firmest possible assurances.

Mr. King: I do not know why the right hon. Member has to keep on repeating himself. Perhaps reselection really does bite. We know his concerns. He does not have to keep repeating them. My hon. Friend was willing to receive a deputation and we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 219 to 257 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 258 to 262 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 264 and 265 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VAGRANCY ACT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Thomas Cox: I wish to discuss the need for a review of the Vagrancy Act, particularly as it relates to prostitution and the changes in the law

which I believe are needed. When the subject appeared on the Order Paper several hon. Members asked what the issue was to be. When I told them they said "Thank goodness that that issue is being discussed". I am talking of such people as my hon. Friends the Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). That indicates that prostitution is a problem in other parts of the country.
Prostitution is an age-old problem. I doubt whether it can be stopped. Some people argue that it has a role in society. There are many types of prostitute. The discreet call girl or the nightclub hostess possibly offend no one. However, when prostitution takes place as it does in my constituency, that is another story.
Prostitution in the Bedford Hill area of Balham has existed for many years. I have often brought the problem to the attention of Ministers. Sometimes there is little activity by prostitutes but at other times there is a great deal of activity. That is certainly the position at present. I say to the Minister and to the police with whom I have discussed the problem, that my constituents have had enough—and I mean enough. They demand action to stop the harassment, the abuse, the threats and the violence which prostitutes inflict upon them.
From early afternoon until the early hours of the morning prostitutes operate in the area. I am told that they arrive in vans. Some of them are organised. Their minders can sometimes be seen—and so the day's prostitution begins. They parade the streets, sit on front walls and become an utter nuisance. As they arrive, so do their customers—the motorists and kerb crawlers.
Can the Minister understand what happens? Does he understand the accosting and harassment of decent, respectable women of all ages, including schoolgirls? To the kerb crawlers, any woman is a possible pick-up and they refuse to take "No" for an answer. One woman on her way home was repeatedly accosted by a motorist. He was told "Go away." He did not. The lady took his car number. She came to see me at my advice service and asked me to obtain his name and address. I took up the matter with the licensing centre at Swansea, but it refused to give me the details. Recently, a lady


was outside her home cleaning the windows. A motorist stopped and called out "Are you out for business?" I could cite many similar examples. The Minister must understand the disgust felt by women when that happens to them.
Some may say that we should tell the prostitutes to go away so that the motorists would not hang around. I say to anyone who suggests that that he should try to do it. He would then hear the abuse and the threats. That is why Government action is needed and why a review of the Act is urgently required.
The Brennan report, published in 1976, considered the Act. It considered numerous issues such as indecent displays and suspected persons. It dealt with prostitution and kerb-crawling. The suggestion about a change in the law is contained in paragraph 97, which states:
Our Working Paper suggests a new provision on the lines of it being an offence for a man persistently to accost a woman or women for sexual purposes in a street or pub-lice place in such circumstances as are likely to cause annoyance to the public, such as residents and users of the street. The maximum penalty would be a fine of £100 and/or three months imprisonment. There would be a power of arrest similar to that in the Street Offences Act.
The only way to stop that sort of prostitution both in my area and in other areas would be for that suggestion to be made law.
If a police officer sees a motorist alone in a car driving round and round an area, stopping to talk to women or trying to accost them, can there really be any doubt about what he is seeking? The police with whom I have discussed the problem on many occasions speak to me of their problems—the shortage of manpower, the ability of women to change their appearance and the fact that they operate in an area for a few weeks and move on, when another group takes their place.
I have visited the Bedford Hill area at night. I have seen all that takes place there. I must say again to the Minister that we have had enough. Four years have passed since the Brennan report. What has happened to it? Is the Home Office still considering its proposals and, if so, for how long? Why cannot the Home Affairs Select Committee be asked to study its proposals if there is any

doubt as to the possibility of turning its suggestions into a working law?
I have outlined the problem and tried to explain the deep disgust felt by local people, especially the women who are accosted. It will happen today and it will happen every day until something is done about changing the existing law. The report covers several issues calling out for review and change. An important piece of legislation could be introduced to cover all those issues. It would not call for any vast expense but it would lead to a sensible change in the law. I suggest that the time for that is now.
I beg the Minister seriously to consider what I have said. I ask him not to tell me that he is sorry about the problems faced by my constituents day after day, but that he can do nothing about them. It is he and his Department who have the power to change the existing law. I cannot believe that the House would oppose such change.
My constituents and I intend to do all we can to see that the present law is changed, because that is the only way in which this problem can be solved. It most certainly will not go away. Action must be taken to stop it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for giving the House this opportunity to discuss a difficult and sensitive issue in the criminal law. He has described vividly for us the problems of prostitution and also the problems created by men soliciting for the services of a prostitute, especially by kerb-crawling.
I particularly appreciate the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred tonight, difficulties that are faced by innocent women and children who happen to live in areas where prostitutes are known to be active on the streets. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened with careful attention to his account of the embarrassment and even humiliation to which they may be exposed.
The growth of this particular form of soliciting was noted as long ago as 1957 by the Wolfenden committee in its report on homosexual offences and prostitution. That committee felt unable to make any recommendations about it, but it has been


the subject of considerable thought since then.
It may be of assistance if I try to place this form of activity in its context. It is in a sense related to prostitution, because the men involved usually claim to be looking for prostitutes, and that claim receives support from the presence of prostitutes on the streets in the area concerned.
The recommendations of the Wolfenden committee led to the Sexual Offences Act 1959. Section 1 of that Act is the main provision for the control of the nuisance caused by prostitutes plying their trade in the streets. The section makes it an offence for a prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. It is also an offence under the Vagrancy Act 1824 for a prostitute in a street or any place of public resort to behave in a riotous or indecent manner, but that offence is obsolete.
The existence of the 1959 Act and the offence provided by section 1 shows that the type of activity described by the hon. Gentleman, in so far as it is carried out by the prostitute, is something that the law is not powerless to deal with, and that the problem is one of law enforcement.
The Street Offences Act has had considerable success in reducing the visible nuisance of prostitutes soliciting in the streets. Some idea of its immediate effect may be gained by comparing the figure of 19,663 prosecutions for soliciting in 1958 with the 1960 figure of 2,828. The number of women proceeded against for loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution has tended to rise slightly since then—there were 3,911 prosecutions in 1978, which led to 3,774 convictions—but on the whole the Act has been successful in substantially reducing the presence of prostitutes on the streets.
Nevertheless, even with the population of prostitutes on the streets considerably diminished, soliciting by men, including kerb-crawling, continues. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask what is being done about it. First, the question of police action arises. Then one must consider the nature of the law as it stands.
I should first explain that police action in relation to soliciting and kerb-crawling is a matter within the operational responsibility of the chief officer of police for

the area concerned—in the case of the hon. Member's constituency the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It is not, therefore, something in which the Home Secretary has authority to intervene. While there will always be room for discussion about the deployment of police resources and about what should be the priorities in policing, in the end this is, and must remain, a matter for each chief officer to decide in the light of the needs and problems of his area.
It is fair to point out with regard to kerb-crawling that because of the legal considerations, which I shall come to, the scope for action is sometimes limited. Motorists driving slowly at night in streets where traffic is light do not necessarily create an obstruction, nor is it easy to secure evidence that would justify a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act for the use of insulting words or behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Where a prostitute is approached she would hardly take offence at that or be concerned about any ensuing verbal wrangle. And where a respectable resident is mistakenly approached it may be difficult to obtain proof of any offence, especially where she, as the only witness, may be reluctant, for entirely understandable reasons, to become involved in any proceedings.
I understand from the Commissioner, however, that the local police are very much aware of the extent of public concern about the problems to which the hon. Member has drawn attention. The local chief superintendent has, I believe, shared a platform with the hon. Member to discuss the matter at a local residents' meeting. This sort of participation does much to foster better understanding and good relations between the police and the public.
In terms of police operations on the ground, I am told that regular patrols are deployed in the area concerned and action is taken where possible to deal with conduct that offends against the law. Generally, this has to be directed against soliciting by prostitutes which in time can reduce the nuisance of kerb-crawling. But the problem then tends to move to another area and police action there can have the effect that the prostitutes return to their former haunts. The Commissioner tells me that a close watch will continue to be kept on the situation


in the Bedford Hill area and that the local police will take such action as they can. I know, too, that careful note will be taken of what has been said tonight about the extent of the nuisance caused and the very real and understandable worries of those affected by it.
I turn now to the law which the hon. Gentleman suggested is in need of reform. Until 1966 it was generally considered that kerb-crawling could be dealt with under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which makes it an offence for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes. In 1966, however, the Divisional Court, in the case of Crook v. Edmondson—reported in 1966 2 Queen's Bench Reports, page 81—ruled that "immoral purposes" under this section did not include sexual intercourse between the accused man and the woman that he approached. It then became difficult for the police to deal with men soliciting women.
The situation was recognised to be generally unsatisfactory and the specific problem of kerb-crawling was looked at by the working party on vagrancy and street offences in the context of a general review of this area of the law. In the course of the review it was suggested to the working party that what was required was a statutory reversal of Crook v. Edmonson so that section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act could once more apply to men who persistently solicited or importuned women in public places. But the views of the working party and of the Brennan report to which the hon. Gentleman referred were that this apparently simple solution was not the best and that a new offence should be created to deal with the situation. The details of that offence have been given to the House by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentlemen rightly pointed out that it is four years since the working party reported and asked what action the Government now propose to take about kerb-crawling.
As to the future, as I pointed out, kerb-crawling and, indeed, soliciting by men in any other way, are, to some extent at least, a concomitant to prostitutes carrying out their business in the streets. In our view, the whole question is merely

one aspect of the wider area of sexual offences. Even if we confine ourselves to the simple question of kerb-crawling, the paragraphs in the working party's report following the one quoted by the hon. Gentleman—that is, paragraphs 98 and 99—illustrate that there are issues at stake in this matter which make it less straightforward than the simple introduction of the enactment referred by by the hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest.
In view of the time limit on this debate, I shall not read the list of problems and controversies referred to in the report, but they are substantial, and they show that it would be unwise simply to legislate on this matter without looking at sexual offences generally.
Before the working party reported, the then Home Secretary had decided to refer the whole law on sexual offences to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is being assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences. That was what was done. The previous Government and this Government thought it right not to deal with the problem in isolation. This is a very complex area of the law in which it would be wrong, in our view, to take action in advance of the committee's considered recommendations. When it has completed its review, it will be appropriate, in our view, for any legislation arising out of its recommendations to deal with kerb-crawling and at the same time to implement any other changes that are recommended and thought appropriate in this area of the law as a whole.
I appreciate that it is disappointing for the hon. Gentleman, who has made a very sound case for the need for a change in the law which I have no difficulty in accepting, to be told that that must wait for a wider consideration of a group of offences. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I believed that this was an offence which was quite unrelated to other matters, I would not seek to use the existence of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences as a shield to protect myself or the Government against an accusation of inaction. But the problem of kerb-crawling is, and can readily be seen to be, related closely to prostitution more generally and the offences associated with that, as well as sexual offences as a whole.
Therefore I must say regretfully to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken the view that we must wait for the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Sexual Offences to report on these matters before legislating. But I am happy to take this opportunity to register my

shared concern with the hon. Gentleman about a mischief which he is right to underline.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock am.